This statistic shows the number of registered sex offenders in the U.S. in 2011 by state. ***** sex offenders were registered in the state of Maine.
Description: Pursuant to the Sex Offender and Child Murderer Community Notification Law, 730 ILCS 152/101,et seq., the Chicago Police Department maintains a list of sex offenders residing in the City of Chicago who are required to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act, 730 ILCS 150/2, et seq. To protect the privacy of the individuals, addresses are shown at the block level only and specific locations are not identified. The data are extracted from the CLEAR (Citizen Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting) system developed by the Department. Although every effort is made to keep this list accurate and current, the city cannot guarantee the accuracy of this information. Offenders may have moved and failed to notify the Chicago Police Department as required by law. If any information presented in this web site is known to be outdated, please contact the Chicago Police Department at srwbmstr@chicagopolice.org, or mail to Sex Registration Unit, 3510 S Michigan Ave, Chicago, IL 60653. Disclaimer: This registry is based upon the legislature's decision to facilitate access to publicly available information about persons convicted of specific sexual offenses. The Chicago Police Department has not considered or assessed the specific risk of re-offense with regard to any individual prior to his or her inclusion within this registry, and has made no determination that any individual included within the registry is currently dangerous. Individuals included within this registry are included solely by virtue of their conviction record and Illinois law. The main purpose of providing this data on the internet is to make the information more available and accessible, not to warn about any specific individual. Anyone who uses information contained in the Sex Offender Database to commit a criminal act against another person is subject to criminal prosecution. Data Owner: Chicago Police Department. Frequency: Data is updated daily. Related Applications: CLEARMAP (http://j.mp/lLluSa).
Sex Offender work and home locations, created as part of the DC Geographic Information System (DC GIS) for the D.C. Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) and participating D.C. government agencies. If users want to obtain more information about sex offenders, they should go to the Sex Offender Mapping Application (https://sexoffender.dc.gov/) and download the “More Details” PDF. Data provided by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency identified sex offender registry providing location at the block level. https://www.csosa.gov/.
In 2023, Texas had the highest number of forcible rape cases in the United States, with 15,097 reported rapes. Delaware had the lowest number of reported forcible rape cases at 194. Number vs. rate It is perhaps unsurprising that Texas and California reported the highest number of rapes, as these states have the highest population of states in the U.S. When looking at the rape rate, or the number of rapes per 100,000 of the population, a very different picture is painted: Alaska was the state with the highest rape rate in the country in 2023, with California ranking as 30th in the nation. The prevalence of rape Rape and sexual assault are notorious for being underreported crimes, which means that the prevalence of sex crimes is likely much higher than what is reported. Additionally, more than a third of women worry about being sexually assaulted, and most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knew.
In 2023, ******* people were the victim of a sex offense in the United States. Of these victims, a total of ****** children aged 10 and under and ****** children between the ages of 11 and 15 years old were victims of sex offenses in that year.
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/37035/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/37035/terms
The purpose of the project was to (1) determine whether the combined dynamic (SOTIPS) and static risk assessment (Static-99R) tools better predicted sexual recidivism than either alone, and (2) determine whether the tools could be implemented successfully in more representative populations. Previous research has established a "status quo" for risk assessments. This study was set within the context of the developing sexual offender risk prediction field, where investigators explored reliable and valid means to assess what have been termed "dynamic risk factors." Instruments that identify the specific psychological risk factors present in the individual offender ought to allow treatment for that individual to be tailored to these specific needs, thus increasing its effectiveness. Thus, instruments have been designed to: Assess psychological factors that are empirically related to sexual recidivism, thus creating a basis for selecting treatment targets Show robust incremental predictive validity relative to Static-99R or other measures of static risk factors Measure change in a way that is convincingly related to sexual recidivism Incorporate and point risk managers towards some of the factors identified in the desistance literature Improve the effectiveness of treatment in reducing sexual recidivism Enrollment of sex offenders in the evaluation study began in April 2013. To be included, offenders needed to be Static-99R eligible (an adult male convicted of a contact or non-contact sex offense with an identifiable victim), mentally cognizant, released to community supervision, and at least 18 years old in January 2013 in Maricopa County and April 2013 in New York City.
The Iowa Sex Offender Registry became law on July 1, 1995 and is found in Chapter 692A Code of Iowa. On or after July 1, 1995, an individual who has been convicted or adjudicated of a criminal offense against a minor, sexual exploitation, or a sexually violent crime or who was on probation, parole, or work release status, or who was incarcerated on or after July 1, 1995 is required to register. Registration does include individuals that have received a deferred sentence or deferred judgments and can include convictions from other jurisdictions such as other states and/or federal convictions. The information on this website is provided from the Iowa Sex Offender Registry to the public pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 692A.
Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
License information was derived automatically
Interactive map and search tools for display of high risk, delinquent, and lifetime sex offenders in North Dakota
Constraints:
Not to be used for navigation, for informational purposes only. See full disclaimer for more information
In response to widespread public concern about convicted sex offenders being returned from prison, federal and state laws have been passed authorizing or requiring the notification of local communities where sex offenders would be living. The dilemma associated with community notification is balancing the public's right to be informed with the need to successfully reintegrate offenders within the community. Wisconsin was one of the 50 state jurisdictions that enacted a sex offender community notification statute. This project was an in-depth study of that state's experience from the vantage point of several groups affected by the community notification process. This data collection contains three surveys that were conducted from January 1998 through mid-September 1998: (1) a survey of 704 neighborhood residents at 22 community notification meetings throughout the state (Part 1), (2) a statewide survey of 312 police and sheriff agencies (Part 2), and (3) a statewide survey of 128 probation and parole agents and their supervisors from units with sex offender caseloads (Part 3). Variables in Part 1 include how respondents found out about the date and place of the community notification meeting, respondents' opinions of the purpose of the meeting, how clearly the purpose of meeting was stated, how the meeting went, outcomes, rating of information presented, if materials were handed out, if the materials were helpful, and respondents' level of concern after the meeting. Enforcement agency data (Part 2) include variables such as type of agency, type of jurisdiction, population size, if the agency designated a special staff member to coordinate the sex offender registration and notification functions, if the agency had policies regarding registration of sex offenders and community notification about sex offenders, if the agency attended statewide training, who participated in the Core Notification Team, what kind of information was used to determine a sex offender's risk to the community, which agencies registered to receive notice, and if the agency planned to update or expand their notification list. Additional variables cover the number of requests for information from Neighborhood Watch Programs, what identifying information about the offender the agency released, types of communication the agency received from the public after a notification had been issued, topics discussed in the public communication to the agency, benefits of the community notification law, difficulties in carrying out the requirements of the law, and methods developed to handle the problems. Probation and parole survey (Part 3) variables focused on characteristics of the respondent's supervising area, the number of agents assigned to the respondents' unit, the number of agents designated as Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Program (SO-ISP) agents or SO-ISP back-up agents, the number of child or adult sex offenders under probation or parole, if the respondent participated in any meetings regarding the provisions of the notification law and its implementation, if the supervisor received specialized training, and areas covered in the training. Other variables include whether the notification level was decided by the Core Notification Team, difficulties the respondent had with Special Bulletin Notification (SBN) offenders assigned to his/her caseload, if the respondent's field unit utilized SO-ISP or "high risk" agent teams to manage sex offenders, which individuals worked with the respondent's team, the type of caseload the respondent supervised, the number of sex offenders on the respondent's caseload, if the respondent used a special risk assessment or classification instrument for sex offenders, other information used to determine the supervision level for a sex offender, if child sex offenders were managed differently than other sex offenders, how often a polygraph was used on sex offenders, who paid for the polygraph, who chose the treatment provider, the number of supervision contacts with high-risk, SBN, or medium-risk sex offenders per week, victim policies and procedures used, rules or policies regarding revocation, and prerevocation sanctions used.
This project undertook the systematic collection of first-generation data concerning the nature, extent, and seriousness of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in the United States. The project was organized around the following research objectives: (1) identification of the nature, extent, and underlying causes of CSE and the commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC) occurring in the United States, (2) identification of those subgroups of children that were at the greatest risk of being sexually exploited, (3) identification of subgroups of adult perpetrators of sex crimes against children, and (4) identification of the modes of operation and other methods used by organized criminal units to recruit children into sexually exploitative activities. The study involved surveying senior staff members of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government organizations (GOs) in the United States known to be dealing with persons involved in the transnational trafficking of children for sexual purposes. Part 1 consists of survey data from nongovernment organizations. These were local child and family agencies serving runaway and homeless youth. Part 2 consists of survey data from government organizations. These organizations were divided into local, state, and federal agencies. Local organizations included municipal law enforcement, county law enforcement, prosecutors, public defenders, and corrections. State organizations included state child welfare directors, prosecutors, and public defenders. Federal organizations included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Public Defenders, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Attorneys, United States Customs, and the United States Postal Service. Variables in Parts 1 and 2 include the organization's city, state, and ZIP code, the type of services provided or type of law enforcement agency, how the agency was funded, the scope of the agency's service area, how much emphasis was placed on CSEC as a policy issue or a service issue, conditions that might influence the number of CSEC cases, how staff were trained to deal with CSEC cases, how victims were identified, the number of children that experienced child abuse, sexual abuse, pornography, or other exploitation in 1999 and 2000 by age and gender, methods of recruitment, family history of victims, gang involvement, and substance abuse history of victims.
https://dataful.in/terms-and-conditionshttps://dataful.in/terms-and-conditions
The dataset contains year-, state-, type-of-crime- and gender-wise compiled data on the number of different types of crimes which were committed against children and the number of victims who were affected by the same crimes. The different types of crimes covered in the dataset include kidnapping and abduction crimes such as kidanapping and abduction for the purpose of murder, begging, ransom, compelling for marriage, procuration of minor girls, importation of girls from foreign countries, missing deemed as kidnapped, etc., fatal crimes such as murder, attempt to commit murder, muder with rape, abetment of suicide of child, infanticide, foeticide, trafficking and sexual crimes such buying and selling of minors for prostitution, use of children for pornography, transmiting sexual content and material involving children in sexually explicit acts, sexual assualt, penetrative sexual assault, rape, and other crimes such as child labour, child marriage, exposure, abandaonment, simple hurt, grievous hurt, insult and assualt of damage modesty, crimes under juvenile justice act and transplantation of organs act, etc.
The dataset also categorizes the above crimes by the pertinent legislations and their specific secitons against which the crimes have been committed against children.
Note: The rate of crimes in the dataset refers to number of crimes committed against Children by projected population of children in Lakhs
Alaska saw the highest rape rate in the United States in 2023, with 118.4 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants. The lowest rate was found in New Jersey, with 17.9 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants. Sexual assault in Alaska Fighting sexual assault in Alaska is particularly difficult due to small, isolated, close-knit communities who can be wary of airing their dirty laundry to outsiders, as well as a low number of law enforcement employees in the state. In addition, Alaska’s low population is spread out over a large land area, meaning that in the event of an assault being reported to police, it can take law enforcement hours, or even days, to reach the most isolated communities. The victims of sexual assault There tends to be more reported female victims of sexual assault than male victims. However, since sexual assault is typically an underreported crime, especially among males, these figures could be, and probably are, much higher. In addition, many victims of sexual offenses tend to be young, although sexual assault can occur at any age.
In 2021, about 652 child abuse perpetrators were reported in Wyoming. In California, there were 49,073 reported perpetrators. Nationwide, about 452,313 child abuse perpetrators were reported in that year.
In 2022, about 194,164 perpetrators of child abuse in the United States were white. In that same year, about 83,314 perpetrators of child abuse were Hispanic, and 25,092 were of unknown ethnic origin.
In 2023, there were 14,327 murder offenders in the United States who were male, in comparison to 1,898 who were female. However, there were also 5,279 murder offenders where their gender was unknown. Homicides in the U.S. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the United States is defined as the willful killing of another human being. Justifiable homicides, or cases where a felon is killed by an officer in the line of duty or a felon is killed during a felony by a private citizen, are not included in murder counts by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The total number of murders varies from state to state in the U.S., with more populous states having higher numbers of murders. Murder offenders and victims Most murder offenders in the United States are between the ages of 17 and 39, with the number of offenders declining steadily after age 40. Additionally, the highest rate of death by homicide was found among males between the ages of 15 and 24. The highest rate of death by homicide for females was for girls under the age of one.
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38791/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38791/terms
The UNIFORM CRIME REPORTING PROGRAM DATA: OFFENSES KNOWN AND CLEARANCES BY ARREST, 2020 dataset is a compilation of offenses reported to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Due to the vast number of categories of crime committed in the United States, the FBI has limited the type of crimes included in this compilation to those crimes which people are most likely to report to police and those crimes which occur frequently enough to be analyzed across time. Crimes included are criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Much information about these crimes is provided in this dataset. The number of times an offense has been reported, the number of reported offenses that have been cleared by arrests, and the number of cleared offenses which involved offenders under the age of 18 are the major items of information collected.
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38963/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38963/terms
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally-representative sample of residential addresses since 1973. The NCVS was designed with four primary objectives: (1) to develop detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) to estimate the number and types of crimes not reported to the police, (3) to provide uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) to permit comparisons over time and types of areas. Beginning in 1992, the survey categorizes crimes as "personal" or "property." Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and purse-snatching/pocket-picking, while property crimes include burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, and vandalism. Each respondent is asked a series of screen questions designed to determine whether she or he was victimized during the six-month period preceding the first day of the month of the interview. A "household respondent" is also asked to report on crimes against the household as a whole (e.g., burglary, motor vehicle theft). The data include type of crime, month, time, and location of the crime, relationship between victim and offender, characteristics of the offender, self-protective actions taken by the victim during the incident and results of those actions, consequences of the victimization, type of property lost, whether the crime was reported to police and reasons for reporting or not reporting, and offender use of weapons, drugs, and alcohol. Basic demographic information such as age, race, gender, and income is also collected, to enable analysis of crime by various subpopulations. This dataset represents the concatenated version of the NCVS on a collection year basis for 1992-2023. A collection year contains records from interviews conducted in the 12 months of the given year. Under the collection year format, victimizations are counted in the year the interview is conducted, regardless of the year when the crime incident occurred.For additional information on the dataset, please see the documentation for the data from the most current year of the NCVS, ICPSR Study 38962.
In 2023, the rate of forcible rapes in the United States stood at 38 per 100,000 inhabitants. As the FBI revised the definition of rape in 2013, the 2023 rate is a slight decrease from 1990, when there were 41.2 forcible rapes per 100,000 inhabitants. What is forcible rape? According to the FBI, forcible rape is defined as “sexual penetration, no matter how slight, with a body part or object without the consent of the victim.” This definition changed in 2013 from the previous definition, which specified “carnal knowledge of a female victim forcibly and against her will.” Attempted rape was included in the previous definition, but statutory rape and other sexual offenses were excluded. The old definition was seen as problematic, as people of any gender can be raped. Since the revision of the definition of rape, reported rapes increased, although it is not clear if this is due to the revised definition or if the rate itself has increased. Rape in the United States While rape and sexual assault have been extensively talked about in the U.S. in recent years, especially since the start of the #metoo movement, there is still a large number of sexual offences committed each year. Sadly, the majority of sex offences in the U.S. are carried out against individuals age 20 and under. Astoundingly, the Anchorage, Alaska metropolitan area had the highest rape rate in the United States in 2023, followed by St Joseph in Missouri and Kansas. Since rape and sexual assault continue to be underreported in the United States, it is important to find a solution to this devastating problem.
These data assess the effects of the risk of local jail incarceration and of police aggressiveness in patrol style on rates of violent offending. The collection includes arrest rates for public order offenses, size of county jail populations, and numbers of new prison admissions as they relate to arrest rates for index (serious) crimes. Data were collected from seven sources for each city. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 1A (ICPSR 7941), provided county-level data on number of persons by race, age, and age by race, number of persons in households, and types of households within each county. CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3A (ICPSR 8071), measured at the city level, provided data on total population, race, age, marital status by sex, persons in household, number of households, housing, children, and families above and below the poverty level by race, employment by race, and income by race within each city. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1980 data provided variables on total offenses and offense rates per 100,000 persons for homicides, rapes, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle offenses, and arson. Data from the FBI for 1980-1982, averaged per 100,000, provided variables for the above offenses by sex, age, and race, and the Uniform Crime Report arrest rates for index crimes within each city. The NATIONAL JAIL CENSUS for 1978 and 1983 (ICPSR 7737 and ICPSR 8203), aggregated to the county level, provided variables on jail capacity, number of inmates being held by sex, race, and status of inmate's case (awaiting trial, awaiting sentence, serving sentence, and technical violations), average daily jail populations, number of staff by full-time and part-time, number of volunteers, and number of correctional officers. The JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY CENSUS for 1979 and 1982-1983 (ICPSR 7846 and 8205), aggregated to the county level, provided data on the number of individuals being held by type of crime and sex, as well as age of juvenile offenders by sex, average daily prison population, and payroll and other expenditures for the institutions.
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38798/termshttps://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/38798/terms
In response to a growing concern about hate crimes, the United States Congress enacted the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. The Act requires the attorney general to establish guidelines and collect, as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, data "about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including where appropriate the crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or vandalism of property." Hate crime data collection was required by the Act to begin in calendar year 1990 and to continue for four successive years. In September 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to add disabilities, both physical and mental, as factors that could be considered a basis for hate crimes. Although the Act originally mandated data collection for five years, the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 amended the collection duration "for each calendar year," making hate crime statistics a permanent addition to the UCR program. As with the other UCR data, law enforcement agencies contribute reports either directly or through their state reporting programs. Information contained in the data includes number of victims and offenders involved in each hate crime incident, type of victims, bias motivation, offense type, and location type.
This statistic shows the number of registered sex offenders in the U.S. in 2011 by state. ***** sex offenders were registered in the state of Maine.