Sunday, February 10, 2013

MT - Bill would grant courts ability to designate sex offenders

Original Article


HELENA - The Montana State Legislature's House Judiciary Committee heard a bill that would give district courts authority to rank sex offenders by likelihood of committing another offense.

The state already requires that registered sex offenders to be designated as a tier 1, 2, or 3 offender. But not every sex offender in the state has a designated tier. Specifically those convicted before 1997, or out of state. House Bill 335 (PDF, Videos) would allow district courts to assign tiers to these offenders.

"In Montana, a therapist looks at this offender and they use statistical tools to tell whether this person is likely to reoffend or not. Those statistical tools are not based on the type of offense that you've committed," says State Prosecutor Ole Olsen of the Montana Attorney General's Office. "It's based on your comparison, what your history is like, what your psychological makeup is like compared to other populations."

No one spoke in opposition of the bill.


Loneranger said...

finally one state that is at least trying to use some science. I did notice one person that still tried to use the what about the children card. I also saw how that was handled. One has to think if 85 percent will fall into level one and that is for ten years many can be removed. Montana isn't what one would call a densely populated state however they do have quiet a list that is growing like all states. I guess the only thing they didn't do here was make it easier to just be removed. Thankfully no one made an issue out of the fact that people will have a way off the list.

Oregon is one of a few states that still has a lifetime requirement. If the stats can be used that Montana sites then 85 percent should be tier one in Oregon also if Oregon used the same process they would still have the same number in tier three and reduce the numbers that need to register considerably. Given most re-offences happen with in the first five years I would think ten years on the registry would be ample time If a person had been rated low and offence free.We all know that any new offence is going to call for more time on the registry anyway. So if we were to use simple math Oregon could reduce their numbers effectively and not raise the risk level of the community. Save money in the process and give thousands a new lease on life. The lifetime requirement has been a better safe then sorry approach taken as back some 20 years ago when they established this no information was available as to if they were at risk or not. Now times have changed and they do have statistical information that shows they are not at risk and lifetime for all based on crime committed is ineffective. They do have ten years for some but it's such a small number it's not worth even talking about as it involves only the ones with a class c felony or less and after that it's for life. Given most never see a class c felony or a lessor charge this is mute leaving 90 or more percent listed for life. One has to wonder why. but given they were under educated in this area when they passed these laws and for good reason one has to wonder when they will catch up here. start applying science to this instead of what makes someone feel comfortable as better safe then sorry because we don't know. On one of their website they say this makes little or no difference in public safety however it does serve a purpose if someone commits another crime. Given the number of people that are listed that commit a new crime ten years later are so few. one would think tracking tens of thousands of people that poss little to no risk is a waist of time. even if they were to offend again that amount of money it took to be ready to go pick them up is astronomical over say a lifetime of waiting. The way to correct this problem is simple. Just stop it. Sure there are going to be the groups that say oh hey we can't do this what if. Well what if your struck by lightning? We know it probably isn't going to happen but the ones that it does happen to did know they might not want to stand out in a open field holding a large metal object. Well don't go out in the field and do that and your probably going to be ok. Common sense will take care of you most of the time. Knowing who committed a sex crime 20 years ago doesn't. for the police to have all this valuable information at their finger tips and just click and you have your offender isn't reality. No they can not just use this to catch offenders as many as 95 percent are not even in there. Well if any law maker in Oregon is reading this please check this out and you will see i'm right and the state will save time and money not to mention tens of thousand of families that will see their lives improve from their loved one being removed from the registry.

BillBarney said...

No matter what stats you use over what spread or sampling it all comes down to pure voodoo. There is no way any one can predict the actions of another. So how can any one or group of individuals assign even a likely hood of re-offense. The whole idea is non-sense. If any one with an average IQ spent just 10 miniutes disecting it on paper they would see the futility of what these people are trying to do.

Bill Barney said...

Lets see how use full this whole level rating thing is. Mr. Mrs Smith living in metropolitan USA are parents of two children and are concerned for their children safety. So they sit down and type their zip in the state registry in which they reside. Many dots appear all around their home. So many dots that they could spend most of the night looking at faces and homes with their two children. So Mr. Smith says well lets just look at the level threes because these are the offender's the state has declared most likely to offend. For this exercise we will say that trims the list to 4 names and homes. While entering the site Mr. Smith reads a disclaimer saying that the offenders provide the information and that the State is not responsible for in accuracies. Then after viewing the fourth offender with his wife and two children it occurs to him that the offenders can legally change how they look. They can change hair, and eye color. They can grow mustaches, beards, goatees or shave all their hair off. He then wonders if he could pick any of them out of a line up in the morning. Then he looks and his eight and six year old who were completely disinterested in the whole exercise and realized just how futile it all was. Further more what guarantees are their that a level one or two wont victimize his children. In the end it is painfully evident that the whole effort was an enormous waste of time. This scenario is played out all across the country every day and yet the registry is something we can't live without.