Today is the day that those reading this article – especially those that have been affected by the Sex Offender registry and regulations – will find hope and realize that it was all a lie. Everything is built upon a foundation. Some foundations are solid and hold up what is built upon them, while others are a bit more fragile and will crumble if hit hard enough causing everything on top to fall along with it. Still others build their foundation on what appears to be solid ground but in earthquake zones, where when the ground shakes you have liquefaction and the buildings sink out of sight; or as with what we have seen in Alaska, once the permafrost starts to melt, the buildings collapse. It is time to quit attacking the building and instead shake the foundation that the laws were built upon.
The Sex Offender Registry was built upon a foundation that was not solid and never has been. It was once said that “If you tell a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.” This quote becomes very true when talking about the registry. The registry stands today on one simple myth of high re-offense rates, and if you look hard enough, it has been proven time and again that it is far below what the government would have the general public believe. The problem is that no one has ever had the fortitude to take the real information and make it public, as well as take it to the Government itself. I am such a person and I will take this information to where it will cause the most damage.
Everyone affected by the registry and its regulations regarding social media, residency restrictions, treatment regulations and supervision regulations always seem to become enraged at what they see first. In the recent months the social media regulations have been drawing the most activity. If everyone would stop looking at what is in front of them and start focusing on the foundation it was all built on, it could as a whole be brought down when the facts on an extremely low re-offense rate are proven. With each court case that pops up, the Judges, Lawyers and Prosecuting Attorneys point towards high re-offense rates, but what if they could be proven wrong each time?
How many American Citizens on the registry today would walk with their head a little higher staring into a brighter future if they were not on the registry? I am not saying they would have never been found guilty of their crime. If they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then they are in fact guilty. If the registry did not exist, they could hold themselves much higher knowing that they and their family will never have to suffer unjust stigma and unconstitutional torture or punishment.
Every case going forward from this point has one common issue, and that is that the foundation of the laws (The High Re-offense Rate) are in fact based on false and misleading information from politicians, victims advocacy groups and clinicians (Treatment Providers); as well as others that are involved in the sex offender industry, who have carried a hidden agenda or fiduciary interest in continuing the myths.
So where in fact can the proof be found amongst all these lies? The proof is in literally hundreds of independent studies (1*) done by individuals and organizations, as well as state and federal governments that prove that justification for the laws are in fact lies. Not surprisingly in many of the studies the researchers attempted to try and conceal the facts of the lie to justify the existence of the laws. When the laws were passed by our Government, they justified them with numbers as high as 75-90% which would in fact, possibly justify some of the laws. The percentages for recidivism are in the single digits, that is less than 10% (2*); and when the group that has been created by these laws are looked at as a whole, not subdivided into little groups, the number goes into the lower single digits.
Even at the time of the original formation of these types of laws the information was out there, some dating back into the 1960s. For example, the Jack study, as cited in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw, “Sex offender Recidivism: A Review”(3*), in 1989 looked into non-treated offenders, and showed the re-offense rate of 1/5th of 1% per year over a 15-year period. Another interesting facet of the Furby study is how their comment was taken out of context. Since the study was to see the effectiveness of treatment programs on sex offenders, people point to the first portion of the comment “There is as yet no evidence that clinical treatment reduces the rate of sex offense.” Furby and her colleagues’ second portion of the statement has been omitted from most other reports, where they stated: “The recidivism rate of treated offenders is not lower than that for untreated offenders; if anything, it tends to be higher,” quite simply meaning that the treatment programs increase the possibility of re-offense. It is now known that as a whole, people on the registry (not specific groups of people being released from prison or treatment facilities, but the entire registry) have a re-offense rate in new sex crimes of less than 3/5th of one percent. (Nebraska sex offender registry study July 31 2013). This Nebraska study is the only one in this country that actually looked at the entire registry within a state and not specific, closed groups.
Looking at the primary moving cases, 2002 case McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002) and the following year in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the basis for the courts constitutional conclusions were based on flawed facts presented by the Solicitor Gen.’s misinterpretation of an amicus brief, that was filed in the cases where a clinician had made a statement that was not backed up or supported by any empirical data that people with sexual crimes re-offend at 80%. Recently this error by the United States Supreme Court was brought to the forefront by an article which started a firestorm of criticism. (4*) Note that Justice Kennedy’s magic words about the recidivism rate of sex offenders – frightening and high – have been cited 91 times by courts around the country, most in the course of upholding state laws allowing for severe ex post facto punishments that can last from years, to decades, to a lifetime. The laws were passed based on studies that since have been proven false and inaccurate (5*) and all the recent studies have shown no high propensity to re-offend.
So how do we attack the foundation of the laws? First of all, we must define that foundation. In the Nebraska study completed in July of 2013 (6*) Researchers found over the entire existence of the registry that the re-offense rate in Nebraska came out to 3/5th of 1 % per year. No one in their right mind can call that high, and yet Nebraska continues to have a registry and within the codification of that registry the very first reason for the existence of it is found at 29-4002. (Legislative findings.) “The Legislature finds that sex offenders present a high risk to commit repeat offenses.” Since this statement has been proven to be untrue by the research done at the request and paid for by the Nebraska legislative body, there no longer exists a reason to justify the registry. However, the Nebraska Legislative body continues to ignore the information provided by the study that they authorized, which destroys the lives and families of registered citizens every day.
The state and federal governments spend billions of dollars each year on registry regulations alone. They make new laws or hire new officers just to make sure registrants are home, all while robbing your children of better school funding for band class, sports or while neglecting the homeless that freeze in the winter. What could we do with billions of dollars that would be saved if the Registry was proven to be an atrocious falsification? Could we ensure our children’s schools were funded properly to handle children with disabilities instead of having to seek private schooling? Or could we make sure our homeless veterans had a warm place to sleep instead of freezing to death in the country they fought for? (7*)
How many other laws, rules and regulations have been formulated and put into effect based on false information? I ask that we realize our power as a group of citizens, and ask ourselves: do we want to be free of unconstitutional regulations that cost not only the registrant, but also their families money, humiliation, and pain. We as a collective of American citizens must stand together and bring the false information and the lies used in the formulation of laws, rules and regulations to the very doorstep of those who would squander our freedoms.
, /blog/2015/07/07/destroyed-families-destroyed-lives-all-because-of-a-lie.html .
The New York Times article: Sex Offenders Locked Up on a Hunch http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/sex-offenders-locked-up-on-a-hunch.html?_r=1
The Avvo Naked Law Blog: The system for punishing sex offenders is broken http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/the-system-for-punishing-sex-offenders-is-broken.html
The Washington Post: More fuel for the movement to reform sex offender laws
The New York Times “Thought Crimes Exist in America 20 Years Late”
The Vox Policy & Politics How the Supreme Court used a made-up statistic to expand sex offender registries
The Washington Post How a dubious statistic convinced U.S. courts to approve of indefinite detention By Radley Balko
Note: Many studies use re-arrest rates and not re-conviction rates, it is common knowledge that about one third of all people arrested for a new sex crime cannot be re-convicted because of false reporting.
AK 03% Page 8: Criminal recidivism in Alaska judicial council January 2007.
AZ 05.5 % Sex offender recidivism Arizona Department of Corrections note bottom of page 03.3%.
CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (CDCR) “2014 Outcome evaluation report“http://californiarsol.org/2015/08/new-cdcr-report-reduces-rate-of-re-offense-to-less-than-1-percent.
CA 05.0 % Figure 12: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2010 Adult institutions outcome evaluation report.
CA 03.5% Table 3-2: California sex offender management board January 2008.
CA 01.9% Figure 11: California sex offender management board 2012 in looking at this one I realize that this is another attempt to increase the visual concept of a higher re-offense rate than actually exists, you will note in table 11, that there are 8490 released sex offenders and that 5870 are returned to prison or 69.1% going onto figure 11. The pie chart does not represent the 8490 but rather represents the 5870. When you take this into account and do the math. 1.9% of 5870 comes out to 111 and 111 people involved in the new sex crime, out of 8490 comes out to an actual re-offend rate of 1.3% for a new sexually related crime. This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.
CA 01.9 % Figure 11: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2012 outcome evaluation report.
CA 5 year study 03.2%: RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A FIVE (5) YEAR STUDY.
CA 10 year study 03.3%: RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY.
CT 01.7% Page 9: Prisoners with no prior sex crime are six times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime recidivism among sex offenders in Connecticut, State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division, February 15, 2012.
DE Table 26 03.1%: RE-ARREST 6 offenders make up that percentage Interestingly on table 27 3Of those offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Re-arrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008.
DE 3.8% Re-arrest table 7: Recidivism of Delaware adult sex offenders released from prison in 2001 July 2007.
DE 05% Re-arrest table 8: After 5 years recidivism of Delaware juvenile sex offenders released in 2001 September 2007 Note nowhere in this study do they actually tell the number or percentage of those that were reconnected basically meaning that they’re hiding something.
FL 4.2% Page10; Figure 2: 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA.
HI 07.7%: RECIDIVISM BY SEXUALLY ABUSIVE ADOLESCENTS: A DIGEST OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH STUDIES Years: 1943-2008 85 RESEARCH STUDIES MEAN RECIDIVISM RATE FOR ALL STUDIES = 7.73% Note: many of these studies used re-arrest figures not re-conviction figures.
IA 02% Page 7 #4: “With the overall recidivism for sex offenses as low as 2%“Iowa sex offender research council report to the Iowa general assembly January 22, 2009.
IA 03% Table 4: New sex crime the Iowa sex offender registry and recidivism. Iowa Department of Human Rights Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice planning and statistical analysis center.
IA 02.3%: Again using the arrest percentages not re-conviction. Page 7 Iowa Department of Corrections Report to the Board of Corrections third in a series of reports highlighting issues contributing to corrections population growth April 2006 sex offenders.
IN Bottom of page: “1.05% Of identified sex offender’s re-offended for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction recidivism rates decrease for 3rd consecutive year.
IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism rates compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of Corrections
ME 03.8% Page 12: Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010
MI 8/10 of 1%: Three-year study has come out of Michigan looking at the number of people on parole that were returned to prison for new crimes they found that of the sex offenders who were released from prison and found that they were involved in the new sexually related crime at 8/10 of 1%, or in other words, that 99.2% DID NOT re-offend in the new sex crime, and that they had the lowest re-offend rate of all the criminal classes released. The full report is here http://nationalrsol.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CAPPS.pdf
MN 5.7 % Table 2 page 21: Over 12 years sex offender recidivism in Minnesota April 2007
NY 04%: Profile and follow-up of sex offenders released in 1986 this one is another attempt to hide the facts. I finally found this information on page 19. They state that there were 556 offenders released below that on page 19. They show on table 14 the number of people related to each of those crimes that were returned to prison. If you look at the numbers for a new sex crime. You will see that they are 5, 6, 5 and 7 totaling 23, when you do the percentages 23/556 you get a re-offense rate of 4%. If you look at the other graphs that they have provided they have shockingly high numbers. The problem is that they are only looking at the people that are returned to prison and ignoring the people that stayed out of prison. So their numbers are skewed because they did not include people not re-offending in their statistical data. This is a prime example of how the government or the people doing the evaluation twist the numbers in an adversarial alliance to get the results that they want.
OH 8%: Report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders in Ohio have a lower recidivism rate than the recidivism rate of all offenders (38.8 percent). A 10-year follow-up of a 1989 cohort of sex offenders released from Ohio prisons found that only 8 percent of sex offenders were recommitted for a new sex offense.
OH 8%: Ten-year recidivism follow-Up of 1989 sex offender releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY re-commitment for a new crime sex offense 8.0 % after 10 years.
WA 07%: Re-offended Department of Corrections public safety update what is the re-offense behavior for sex offenders under supervision in the community? •Of the 264 offenders who committed a re-offense: 83% or 218 were unemployed •73% or 192 DID NOT have stable housing pointing to a specific reason why community notification and residency restrictions fundamentally increase re-offense rates.
WY 04.4%: Again I have to dig through the research to find the numbers. The end result is that between 2000 and 2005, 545 sex offenders were released and of that 24 re-offended in a new sex crime. That makes the re-offend rate of 04%.
As a final note about the above studies, it needs to be pointed out that many of the people in these studies have had treatment; and the standing argument is that people with treatment have a lower re-offense rate, that is another lie and is not really the case. Simply go back to the article and look at the percentages for the Jacks study where no one had treatment and the re-offense rate was 1/5 of 1% per year over 15 years. or you could check out this article: /blog/2013/11/24/the-effectiveness-of-sex-offender-treatment-programs.html for more info.