Static 99 developers attempting to deflect criticism of their program admit the obvious.

In a article posted at (http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2013/11/static-99-developers-embrace-redemption.html) the static-99 (an actuarial assessment instrument) developers are embracing redemption and have posted a new report that sex offender risk plunges over time in the community. This is something that has been widely recognized for a long period of time, with many studies pointing this out. It would appear that the Static 99 developers are trying to deflect criticism of their program by admitting things that studies have been proving for the past decade. It seems a little late on their part to admit the obvious.

The Static 99 evaluation has played a key part in the sentencing phase of the criminal justice system. Not to mention that it is also played a large role in deciding rather somebody should be committed after their prison time is up to a mental institution. Now they are saying “whoops, sorry we made a few mistakes”.

It seems to me that the clinicians are still trying to get across that people convicted of sex crimes have a high re-offense rate which just is not the case. In fact in a recent study  done for the Nebraska Legislature (Nebraska sex offender registry study) that looked at all the people who had been convicted of sex crimes in Nebraska they found a real offense rate of 6/10 of one percent per year.  Most of you will remember the Department of Justice study that was done in 1997 looking at prisoners released in 1994, they came up with the re-offense rate of 3.5% for the worst of the worst. But there was a table missing (Missing Table From Report NCJ 198251 (Exhibit 6F)  Exhibit 4) that showed the percentage that sex offenders were involved in new sex crimes during that time in those states in the study that showed that the general public (or non-sex offenders) was responsible for 187,132 new cases, or 99.973% of the new sex crimes reported in that time period. So to say that “risk of committing a new sexual crime may become “indistinguishable from the risk presented by non-sexual offenders”, this is actually so far off base it isn’t even funny. The general public is way more likely to be involved in the new sex crime then a person on the registry.

Remember this information is coming from the same group that designed the Static 99  that was found to be only 47% accurate in predicting dangerousness and was found to be plagued by authorship bias,  (http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2011/06/violence-risk-meta-meta-instrument.html)
(http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2013/09/risk-assessment-tools-plagued-by.html)
These people have made their living off of the fear that they have generated that most sex offenders are going to reoffend and that they with their crystal ball will be able to predict the ones that do. Do you really believe that they’re going to come out and say that 99% plus of the people on the registry with or without treatment will never reoffend and kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

2 comments for “Static 99 developers attempting to deflect criticism of their program admit the obvious.

  1. john d
    May 1, 2016 at 7:54 pm

    my introduction to the static-99 was upon my return to the DOC for a 12 year old probation violation. 15 years after my crime was committed. I was eighteen and hooked up with a girl at a party, it wasn’t till much later when i was sitting across from a detective that I learned she was underage. I honestly haven’t been attracted to a teenager I was a teenager, but the Insomm therapist claimed that I was a high risk according to the static-99. Even though I spent 14 years on the streets and never re offended. They wanted me to undergo 120 hours of “therapy”. If my “victim” was related to me and I was say 60 when I committed the crime I would have been low risk. i made a mistake, it was an unfortunate circumstance but it put a lot of things into perspective for me. I am able to live my life knowing I will never re offend, not because of some ridiculous therapy, but because i was able to learn from my mistakes. So many SOs are young people often times someone misrepresents their age or they have an ongoing relationship that they choose not to terminate when one of them turns 18 and magically becomes an adult. A lot of these cases could be avoided if young people were properly educated, demystifying sexuality, and giving comprehensive knowledge about consent would do wonders. Young men and women need to know that their worth isn’t defined by their sexuality. Unfortunately you look at the social cues we are given and you receive the opposite message. In that regard the mental illness is systemic young people learn about sexuality from tv, movies, music, and even early exposure to pornography all because people are afraid to talk about sex. As far as mental health treatment is concerned, I feel that people should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If an individual is hopelessly attracted to children they need help, And the same curriculum certainly doesn’t apply to a person in my situation. Common sense needs to get a foothold here, and in the mean time more dynamic tools for evaluation are available, they need to be used. The only reason the static -99 is used is because it allows these pseudo therapists to pull the largest amount of people into their mandatory programs, thus maximizing their profits from both taxpayers and mandatory fees. Now that’s sick.

Comments are closed.