tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post6370446567467681806..comments2024-03-20T19:17:02.285-07:00Comments on IN THE NEWS: Groundbreaking study of sex offender life coursesKaren Franklin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/01032855743077403199noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-15861587763889369112018-02-18T00:00:40.278-08:002018-02-18T00:00:40.278-08:00Aw, this was an incredibly nice post. Taking the t...Aw, this was an incredibly nice post. Taking the time <br />and actual effort to create a really good article...<br />but what can I say... I procrastinate a lot <br />and never manage to get nearly anything done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-35252814175988856912012-03-01T10:31:48.740-08:002012-03-01T10:31:48.740-08:00I have a friend who was convicted of possessing ch...I have a friend who was convicted of possessing child pornography. He was sent to prison for seven years (as he should have). When he came out he was no better than when he went into prison - mentally. Indeed, he did go through SOME form of treatment BUT because everybody was lumped together. He was considered a "high risk" to the community after undergoing treatment. The courts has put heavy restrictions on him that makes me wonder: Are we really protecting our children? His restrictions inlcude, having no ties with the community, must not be around minors under 18yrs old including children of his own. What are law makers going?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-23436207173541430072010-07-26T14:15:26.104-07:002010-07-26T14:15:26.104-07:00It is also shameful when lawmakers and reporters u...It is also shameful when lawmakers and reporters use that blanket term, "we have decided to err on the side of children." What that means is we have decided to institute more laws that not only don't work, but may HARM people because we think it looks good. Passing harmful laws...that and only that should be the focus. Are the laws harmful? Why isn't anyone asking that question? How about sex offenders that have moved on with their life because they realize it was some thing that happened years ago and don't want it to control their life, and now they are married and have children? Do they really not care that THEIR children must now suffer? Is that not also harming a child? The current laws are ignorant and medieval, and the one's passing them know these facts. They only pass them to grandstand and get some limelight. What happens when it all comes to a boil? Deal with it then? The registry is a farce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-18703127880444982702010-07-22T22:22:43.944-07:002010-07-22T22:22:43.944-07:00For my own two cents worth - those LEAST likely to...For my own two cents worth - those LEAST likely to reoffend are those who never offended in the first place - the falsely accused, the plea bargainers, the custody losers.<br /><br />I'd say recidivism is just about -0 for those poor bastards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-37218360919170855712010-06-30T10:45:41.214-07:002010-06-30T10:45:41.214-07:00RSOL/CC Sex Offender Fact Sheet Revision Date: 1/2...RSOL/CC Sex Offender Fact Sheet Revision Date: 1/28/10<br />Compiled by RSOL/CC Research Team Not For Publication<br />Abolishment of the Public Sex Registry<br /> Only 5.3% of the people convicted of sex offenses were re-arrested for a new<br />sex offense and 3.5% were re-convicted. (JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE) (1)<br /> 87% of sexual offenses would not have been prevented through sex offender<br />registration. The majority of the new offenses were committed by individuals<br />who were first-time sex offenders, offenders not on the registry. (JUSTICE<br />POLICY INSTITUTE) (4)<br /> "The system is broken," (AWA laws) Walsh said. "It's overwhelmed and I think<br />the public is starting to realize that." (CBS TV Broadcast)suetiggershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08222568367616428469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-57914350538149426402010-06-13T22:52:41.091-07:002010-06-13T22:52:41.091-07:00At some point there has to be an interest in clini...At some point there has to be an interest in clinical facts. It has already been proven that less than 5% of the offender population are likely to reoffend, and yet politicians push every year to punish people further who should probably be considered for derigistration. I know people who would give anything in this life for a chance to undo what they did and spend every day wishing they could have the chance to show that they are decent people. Most of the current "counseling" as they call it is based on the predication that offenders are incapable of remorse and should not be forgiven, ever. What sort of science does this line of thinking fall under, I wonder? The scientific community aught to be ashamed for the monster they created.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-41743393648364389272010-06-11T11:43:42.078-07:002010-06-11T11:43:42.078-07:00Once the misunderstandings and all the myths are p...Once the misunderstandings and all the myths are put before the general public (major majority of offenders are family member,close friends and neighbors NOT some stranger coming out of the bushes etc.)Only some 5 percent are the SVP, and the fact that over 80 percent are of a low threat and their crime being simple groping,fondeling,or touching without the use of force or violence and occured many years ago, will the use of exams such as the static-99 be truly accepted. <br />For example in California where it all began back in 1945 being the first state to start tracking sex offenders for life (65 years ago)and now has 88,000 offenders how is anyone to expect any test or exam to be 100 percent correct? The tests and exams can only perdict reoffending by the general personality traits of not being able to control ones sexual desires and their history of the use of violence, their age, if they had a normal loving relationship, and their criminal history just to name a couple of the needed questions of static-99. It does work but another myth is to ever believe that any test or exam will ever be 100 percent correct. <br />Get the low threat offenders out of the system and you have just gained an 80 percent BETTER chance that any test or exam will keep a dangerous person out of the general public and get the true dangerous offender the help that they need to no longer be a dangerous person to the public.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-23331520175419674012010-06-05T20:20:01.941-07:002010-06-05T20:20:01.941-07:00In is known by professionals who use actuarial met...In is known by professionals who use actuarial methods including the Static-99 that accuracy, and repeatability are not in the high percentiles, but in the mid to low percentiles, nevertheless these methods are tauted or pushed as highly accurate in prediction.<br /><br />Just as with evolution, push it long enough as something that really happened, and most people will come around in believing the efficacy of it, and thus it is with many of these actuarial methods.<br /><br />Because most of these methods are based on grouping all people together, they hide and distort the limitations. When these methods are focused on groups of people with nearly the same crime involvement or type of crime then the accuracy increases with limitations, but this is not how these actuarial methods are used.<br /><br />Just like Colorado's No Known Cure that is actually applied to everyone labeled a sex offender, the lie is told, and the ignorant believe.Bennie Waltonhttp://www.gimeweb.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361358365193630538.post-13353378107631865572010-06-04T14:00:23.351-07:002010-06-04T14:00:23.351-07:00I can believe that actuarial tools have all kinds ...I can believe that actuarial tools have all kinds of flaws, but I'd like to see the non-actuarial methods that are better predictors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com