Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Static-99 developers embrace redemption

Original Article

The politicians pushing these draconian laws, the media and other organizations don't care about facts! They need to continue the fear campaign to keep the money rolling in, and to keep people distracted from the REAL problems in this country! Sex offenders are today's scapegoat!


By Karen Franklin, Ph.D.

Criminals reform.

Violent criminals reform.

And now -- drum roll -- the authors of the most widely used actuarial tool for assessing sex offender recidivism are conceding that even sex offenders cross a "redemption threshold" over time, such that their risk of committing a new sexual crime may become "indistinguishable from the risk presented by non-sexual offenders."

Tracking a large group of 7,740 sexual offenders drawn from 21 different samples around the world, the researchers found that those who remain free in the community for five years or more after their release are at drastically reduced risk of committing a new sex offense.

The offenders identified as at the highest risk on the Static-99R saw their rates of reoffending fall the most, from 22 percent at the time of release to 8.6 percent after five years and only 4.2 percent after 10 years in the community. Based on their findings, the researchers say that risk factors such as number of prior offenses are time-dependent rather than truly static or never-changing.


"Frank Jackson" said...

This problem is rife in New Zealand. Authorities go to
extraordinary lengths to cover up under age sex. Our 14-year old daughter was
also victim of a gang like this in Auckland. NZ authorities gagged us (parents)
and our two sons in order to keep us quiet. The NZ Head of State gave the men


disqus_uoa6Nyfpoq said...

Wisconsin has a $100 annual fee. With over 22,700 registered according to the NCMEC that generates over $2.2 million. Michigan with almost twice the number of registrants will generate a similar amount of income. I contacted the Wisconsin ACLU about this issue, but they never bothered responding to my inquiry. I guess $2.2 million dollars isn't enough to make it worth the effort to respond.

It is abundantly clear to me that a "fee" that is directly and only a result of one's criminal behavior is not a fee, but a fine (i.e. punishment). Because the assessment of the "fee" is codified in the registration statue which is supposedly not punishment, it stands to reason that not only is it an ex post facto violation to apply it retroactively, but it shouldn't be applicable to anyone past, present, or future without jeapordizing the statute's non-punitive standing.

Loneranger said...

For any other crime than a sex crime after seven years of being crime free you are seen as having no higher risk than someone that has never been arrested. When looked at for employment or housing. Given there are some jobs that require a license that you may or may not be eligible for. Nursing and fields that involve drugs may make you wait the full seven years but most often do not. Now when it comes to sex offenders we are frozen in time. Everything happened that day and no one ever changes. This is not true as a crime is a crime. People that have been crime free for seven years no matter what it was should be viewed the same. This study only states what people should have already known.
given Oregon and other state want to hang on for life. They make it so even though they say some will be released few are ever. Makes me wonder why. Well reports like this are a good thing as it brings out what has been known for years but not one politician will admit. Just think of all the wasted money that could have been spent on schools and roads and well you get the idea. but still it goes down this huge sinkhole and all for nothing.
What I find interesting is when they say even people in what is perceived as high risk after ten years should be reviewed. the way it is in Oregon now is a mishmash of what is viewed as deserving life as some are based on the crime and others are not. When the static 99r is applied many that will be held on lifetime registration and also many on lifetime parole already have a low static 99r score that if reevaluated over time would even be lower for the majority. So why hang on for life for anyone that has not re-offended in over two decades in many cases? If the truth were known the ones on the registry have a less than likely chance of offending than the average person. This can be proven when you look at the first time offenders and these are your average never offended before citizen and the ones that have been on this for decades. We can not continue down this road as it serves no purpose after a point. that point is when you become less likely to offend then the guy that is writing and enforcing the laws. Anything more is cruel and unusual punishment as it serves no other purpose.

Mark said...

You cannot be any closer to your assessment than this article! Especially if this is applied retroactively. Add the 2.2 million tom the Byrne grants and guess what????? they have lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. And where does this all go to? I would not necessarily argue ex post facto, but more of a new legal obligation to settled expectations before the enactment was passed. Perhaps the local ACLU would like to sink their teeth into this one. A fine may be a bit more difficult to argue - and hope there is some case precedent then you may have a more cogent fight.

Mark said...

From: mark: Doe v. Raemisch, 895 F.Supp 2d. 897 @ 909 (E.D. Wisconsin 2012). DO YOUR RESEARCH MICHIGAN!!! The case cited within, will also discuss registry fees as a fine.

disqus_uoa6Nyfpoq said...

In my opinion, it's ex post facto for everyone. It all stems from the argument that the registry is NOT punitive. If an individual is sentenced and they fulfill that sentence then they are completely discharged from state obligations. If the state wants to argue that registration is not a punitive state obligation then no individual aspect (or taken as a whole as in Ohio I think) of registration can be punitive in intent or in consequence. The intent may not have been punitive, but the consequence (forcing payment for no benefit to the payer) is punitive. Thus, you're assessing a penalty after all punitive obligations have been payed.

disqus_uoa6Nyfpoq said...

Why not simply form a sex offender registry fund? If you're sentenced due to a sex crime and your registration is 25yrs, then just order the offender to pay a $1,250 ($50 x 25yrs) fine or court obligation (akin to victim funds and restitution) to the registry fund. That would clear, straight forward, and most importantly constitutional.