So Why are the Reconviction Rates So Important?

Why the actual re-offense rates are important pertaining to the total number of people who are already on the registry compared with the percentage of those who are then later reconvicted of a new sexually related crime. This is a simple one, the fact is that the registry and community notification laws are based on the premise that people who have been convicted of any type of sexually related crime are going to commit more. In fact, most states have within their statutes their reasoning for the laws existence and that is this high possibility for re-offense. So if it doesn’t exist than their rationale and justification for the laws evaporates and the government’s purpose for the law becomes arbitrary and capricious, based on nothing more than a desire to restrict the liberties of a given group of people based on fear and bigotry.

Normally the second reason used by the government to justify the existence of the law is to help law enforcement track down people involved in new sex crimes. That naturally makes the assumption that people on the registry are the ones going to be involved in any new crimes.

So it is important that these two issues related to re-offense rate that must be dealt with. The first one is; of the people that are on the registry, what is the percentage that are involved in new sexually related crimes, and the second question is, what is the percentage of the people on the registry that are involved in a new sexually related crime in comparison to the ordinary citizen who have never been convicted of a sexually related crime? If in either case, there is a high re-offense rate for people on the registry, than the justification for the law could exist, if not than the justification evaporates.

The problem is government has done its best to hide the truth, thereby taking away the possible challenges to the laws. The legislators, suppose victim’s advocates and special interest groups that financially benefit from the myth of high re-offense rates have promoted these biased laws. But even their own studies that only look at selected groups and not the entire registry, have continually shown low reconviction rates In new sex crimes for people with prior sex crimes. Two studies have recently come to light that have actually looked at all the people on the registry. One is the Nebraska sex offender registry study completed July 31st 2013 which was actually commissioned by the Nebraska Legislature, where it shows that the re-offense rate for people on the Nebraska Registry is 6/10 of one percent. The second one was done in Ohio where they tracked 21,750 people that were on their registry for 10 years in any given year. The re-offense rate was less than 3/10 of one percent “Note: Re-offenses in one year. There are more RSO registered than shown above for this data is only for the ten years from 2000 to 2010. Ohio has had their registry since 1996. During the following four to five years, there has been an additional 5000 RSOs who have now been on the registry from 10 to 15 years and they only add about 1 re-offense a year at the most. The re-offense rates for each year after released is based form the information found in ODRC Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offenders Releases ; By Paul Konicek Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Office of Policy, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation; “ at the end of the study comparing the people who did not reoffend against the people who did . They came up with the re-offense rate of 1/100 of 1% so there doesn’t seem to be a high reoffend rate for people who are on the registry as bias government officials and special interest groups would have us believe.

The second part of it is to aid law enforcement when new sex crimes happen. First of all most of that reasoning has disappeared simply because there is no high re-offense rate, so there is no need to aid law enforcement. Many people point to the Department of Justice study done in 1997 on prisoners released in 1994 and followed for three years. A graph has surfaced, that was supposed to be in this study that was removed before it was printed. The primary reason this was done is that it shows information that is not in this study, and one would assume that this information was also removed from the study, that is, the number of people in the last two-years during this study that were involved in new sex crimes within those states that were in the study. That total according to the FBI statistics showed that there were 187,132 new convictions for sex crimes related to this time, in the states within this study. (The last two years of the study) only 50 people who who had prior sexual convictions were involved and that means that of the new sex crimes committed in 1995 and 1996 99.973% were done by people not on the registry so why waste the time and resources running around disrupting and destroying the lives people and their families who have low reoffence rates and only have a 27/1000 of 1% chance of having been involved in a new crime? The answer is simple from my point of view, it is because of fear and bigotry. I wonder if that the message that the legislators want to convey to their constituents is that the Constitution means nothing, and that it’s okay to pass legislation based on fear and hatred? I wonder who will next fall victim to these legislators.

Click on graph for clearer view

The question has been asked why was this graph removed along with the supporting information from this study I believe the reason that this graph was removed was for a number of reasons . First of all, the statement that is in the 1997 study that says sex offenders are four times more likely to be involved in a new sex crime than other inmates released from prison. Which has since been proved to be a manipulation of the statistical data, with the fact being that inmates who had no prior sexual charges were responsible for 90.9% of the new sex crime convictions of people released from prison. So that statement is proven to be not at all true or supported by the data and the fact is that the graph quite clearly shows that.

So when we talk about the Department of Justice study that was done in 1997. The main thing that needs to be pointed out is that 99.973% of new sex crimes committed in 1995 and 1996. Where done people who had never been convicted of a sex crime before. one other thing that it shows is that during that two-year period (. Note that the study was done for three years and came up with a re-offense rate of 3.5% re-conviction of the small specified group that it tracked) the graph clearly shows that for the second and third year combined of the study time only 5/10 of 1% of the registered citizens reoffended. That is, I believe why this table/ graph/ information was removed by the government or authors of the study before it was printed if the government is trying to prove that sex offenders have a high re-offense rate. This table by itself blows that theory clear out of the water.

Remember one thing all these studies of prisoners being released from prison, or people in therapy groups do not give a true picture of what is going on on the Registry . They only gives somewhat of a picture of what is going on with people being released from prison. The only two studies that I know of that actually looked at all people that were on the registry and track their re-offense rate was the Nebraska one they came up with the re-offense rate of 6/10 of one percent . Another similar study was done in the state Ohio with an overall re-offense rate of less than 9/10 of one percent.

Laws must be rationally related to serving some government purpose A law must not rely on classification and whose relationship to the asserted goal is so attenuated as to render distinction arbitrary or a irrational. “The desire to harm a politically unpopular group is not a legislative state interest.” “mere negative attitudes or fear of a given group will not suffice as legitimate governmental purpose for legislation” “legislation imposing special disabilities upon groups disfavor by virtue of circumstances beyond their control suggests a kind of class or caste is treatment that the 14th amendment was designed to abolish..” “characteristics like race and gender.illegitimacy or national origin, is determined by causes beyond the individual’s control and bears no relationship to the individual’s ability to perform or to participate in or to contribute to society and especially where the class has suffered a history of discrimination based on stereotype notions of that characteristics. Any legislation resting upon such and the relevant characteristic . A likely reflects nothing more than in invidious stereotypes beyond the scope of any permissible governmental purpose, while most legislation enjoys a presumption of constitutional ity. legislation based on invidious characteristics is not entitled to that presumption and must be carefully scrutinized by the judiciary. Equity foundation of Cincinnati versus Cincinnati 860 F Supp 417 1994

it is not necessarily to demonstrate that the action challenge was taken solely for discriminatory purposes it is necessarily only to demonstrate that a discriminator purpose was a motivating factor Village of Arlington Heights versus Metropolitan housing development Corporation Id.256, 97 S.Ct. At 563 also legislative intent need not be taken into consideration at all. Legislative intent is irrelevant when Congress adopts a law that: (1) violates a constitutional prohibition; or (2) falls outside the constitutional authority granted to Congress. The bottom line is that mere intent to comply with the Constitution will not save an otherwise unconstitutional law.

The U.S. Supreme Court found a number of laws violating the U.S. Constitution. And in each instance the Court did not inquire about the motives of lawmakers – it was not relevant. See United States v. Doremus, 249 US 86 (1919),  Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 US 663 (1966),  Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973),  Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 (1997).

Having pointed out, these discrepancies in the rationale and justification for the laws and that the information being provided by the special interest groups with a vindictive or fiduciary interest in keeping these laws in place are in fact either myths or outright liars as well as the constitutional deficiencies of these type of laws, do we have any patriotic legislators, who will uphold their oath to defend the Constitution and put an end to this type of outright discrimination.


State studies that look only released prisoners.and still show low rates.

AK 03% page 8 Criminal Recidivism in Alaska Alaska Judicial Council January 2007!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

AZ 05.5 % Sex Offender Recidivism Arizona dept. of corrections. Note bottom of the page 03.3%!8633&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

CA 00.8% The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) “2014 Outcome Evaluation Report“

CA 05.0 % fig 12 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation
2010 Adult Institutions Outcome Evaluation Report!8632&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

CA 03.5% table 3-2 California sex offender management Board January 2008!8630&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

CA figure 11 01.9% 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 reoffend 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 reoffend rate of 1.3% . This is just another way that the government is using razzle-dazzle techniques. In doing their statistical analysis.!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

CA 01.9 % figure 11 California Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report!8943&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf


CA 10 year study 03.3% RECIDIVISM OF PAROLED SEX OFFENDERS – A TEN (10) YEAR STUDY!8626&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

CT page 9 01,7% And 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% REARREST 6 offenders and on table 27 3 Offenders were not found guilty of a crime that makes the percentage of people convicted of a new sex crime. 01.5% Rearrest should never be used as a determining factor. Delaware Sex Offenders, Profiles and Criminal Justice System Outcomes, January 2008!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

DE 3.8% rearrest table 7 Recidivism of Delaware Adult Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 2001 July 2007!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

DE 5% rearrest table 8 after 5 years Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001 September 2007!8620&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

FL 4.2% page10 Figure 2 10 year follow up SEX OFFENDER RISK AND RECIDIVISM IN FLORIDA!8784&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf


IA 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!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IA table 4 03% 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!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IA ARREST 02.3% 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!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IN bottom of page “1.05% of identified sex offender’s recidivated for a new sex crime within 3 years.” Indiana Department of Correction Recidivism Rates Decrease for 3rd Consecutive Year!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism Rates Compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of CORRECTION!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

ME page 12 03.8% Returned to prison for sex offense SEXUAL ASSAULT TRENDS
AND SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM IN MAINE 2010!8612&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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 Reoffend in the new sex crime. And that they had the lowest reoffend rate of all the criminal classes released.  the full report is here

MN 5.7 % over 12 years Table 2 page 21 Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota April 2007!8610&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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 a 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 end up with the 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 reoffending in their statistical data.!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

OH report to the Ohio criminal sentencing commission, January 2006 sex offenders 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!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

OH Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommitment for a New Crime Sex Offense 8.0 % after 10 yeaars!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

WA03 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

WY 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 reoffended in a new sex crime . That makes the reoffend charade of 04.4%

10 comments for “So Why are the Reconviction Rates So Important?

  1. Ranger11bv
    June 26, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Simple: its ALL about MONEY!!!

    • Tim Lawver
      July 1, 2017 at 1:12 am


      The database is a very useful tool. It can be used for good and bad. There are thousands of databases throughout the world and they are used for everything you can imagine. In the case of the SORs, they were promoted as useful to the citizen for the purpose of identifying individuals with sex assault convictions. It was thought that community identification would lead to less opportunity for offenders to engage potential victims. In that sense if was prophylactic in nature.

      SCOTUS upheld this idea in the Alaska V Doe/ Smith v Doe cases, because according to the court; Registration itself imposes no, “affirmative disability or restraint.” And therefore could not be construed as punishment in the historical sense. The majority of the members of that court took the position that they would simply “defer to the stated legislative intent.” (
      In simplest terms the majority agreed that the broad goal of protecting citizens was advanced by the Wetterling Act and they could not find proof of intended restraint.

      Yet anyone on the registries knows that “restraint” is and always was the purpose of such an invention.

      Today the list of registered sex offenders are use for many types of unconstitutional purposes that is out right “affirmative disability of restraints.” This glaring discrepancy was first laid to bear in Carr v. United States (08-1301) where by Mr. Carr was restrained (jailed and convicted) for not registering his movement from one state (Alabama) to another (Indiana). Carr’s attorney argued that both his conviction and his movement pre-dated SORNA the Feds of course took the opposite position.

      SCOTUS determined
      “(2) Also unavailing is the Government’s invocation of one of SORNA’s purposes, to locate sex offenders who failed to abide by their registration obligations. The Government’s argument confuses SORNA’s general goal with §2250’s specific purpose. Section 2250 is not a stand-alone response to the problem of missing sex offenders; it is embedded in a broader statutory scheme enacted to address deficiencies in prior law that had enabled sex offenders to slip through the cracks. By facilitating the collection of sex-offender information and its dissemination among jurisdictions, these other provisions, not §2250, stand at the center of Congress’ effort to account for missing sex offenders. { While subjecting pre-SORNA travelers to punishment under §2250 may well be consistent with the aim of finding missing sex offenders, a contrary construction in no way frustrates that broad goal.} Taking account of SORNA’s overall structure, there is little reason to doubt that Congress intended §2250 to do exactly what it says: to subject to federal prosecution sex offenders who elude SORNA’s registration requirements by traveling in interstate commerce. Pp. 14–17. ” (

      In plain language the purpose of 2250 was to punish a sex offender for innocent legal movement that predated SORNA. A win for Mr. Carr and the first strike against the “stated purpose” of the registries.

      The notion of barring citizens from innocent behavior is abhorrent to the constitution as it resembles banishment. US courts have continually and consistently struck down laws that do. Mr. Packingham’s case is yet another machination of the public’s willingness to abandon the constitution. The vitriol against the sex offender is unprecedented and it is reflected by the fact that North Carolina Legislature and Governor passed the law without objection from anyone in either party, HELL MANY OF THEM BRAGGED ABOUT IT. (

      This is the reality concerning the STATE OF THIS NATION.

  2. Concerned Reader
    June 26, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    Before you post what could be intelligent and needed information, you should thoroughly proof read it. This article is so poorly written as to be nearly unreadable. Even basic grammar and simple capitals is lacking. The poor resolution of the graph does not help either. Please rewrite this!

    • George
      June 27, 2017 at 5:52 am

      @ Concerned Reader,

      Just how “concerned” are you about the content of this article? I was able to read and comprehend it very well. As far as the “poor resolution of the graph”, as the article points out, click on the graph to view it in clarity. Perhaps it’s more your comprehension skills lacking than Will’s grammar and punctuation.

      I agree that anyone that comments on this site in a manner such as yours has something else in mind that is in opposition to what this site is all about. Take Will’s advice, rewrite the article and submit it for review and publication or shut the hell up. Your type of snarkism is not welcome and could be a hindrance for the work that most of us are trying to accomplish.

    • June 27, 2017 at 6:54 am

      You mean simple capitals ARE lacking, Mr. Grammar Nazi? Also, proofread is one word not two.

      At any rate, most folks aren’t statisticians, and many studies are rather vague. What is an “arrest” and what are the arrests specifically about?

      Will, I might have to recruit you to help me revise my recidivism 101 article someday.

  3. Will Bassler
    June 26, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    I apologize for not having the English skills that you think I need. I am a researcher and technical writer. That said I’m more interested in the accuracy of the information, then the correct grammar and punctuation. To me comments like this seems like — if you can’t attack the message you attack the messenger. I am not a grammar Nazi nor do I have any desire to become one. If you’d like you can take the information here and rewrite it and submit it to SOSEN and the managing editor will consider placing it on our front page. it’s easy to sit on the sidelines and do armchair quarterback and it’s another thing go through the tedious work of researching and making sure accurate information is placed out there we welcome anyone who wants to do the research and write articles.

    • Concerned Reader
      June 27, 2017 at 4:22 pm

      Will, I meant no ill will in my post and was not trying to be a “grammar Nazi” nor perfect myself as the grammar Nazis pointed out. I was hoping you would read it and either revise the article or not but not publish the comment as it was only meant for you and only to help you get your point across. I think you have some very good points to make but others may not take them seriously as written. I expected it to be held for review and deleted after you saw it. That is also why I chose the name “Concerned Reader” in hopes you would not take it personally. Would you please delete my comment and all these others concerning it so as not to dilute your good work. Thank you and best wishes.

      • Will Bassler
        June 28, 2017 at 10:02 am

        Concerned Reader
        I prefer not to take down the posts I try to allow ideas that conflict with my own to be moderated through the comment section is extremely unusual for me to actually stop the comment from going through. I think that your points were probably valid. I am not a paragon of virtue when it comes to grammar or punctuation and spelling. On top of that my typing skills suck so I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking to create my articles. My background is in hard science and mathematics, so I focus on making sure information is researched and accurate. If from your viewpoint the article is poorly written and would be better if it was rewritten. Then I welcome someone doing that, the point is that if you see that the article is weak on presentation others might see that also and not understand why such a meandering article has been put up. The point I’m trying to make is when you comment on it and it is moderated through. It gives me the opportunity to explain my writing style and then maybe people will focus more on the information that I present and less on my weak English capabilities.

        If someone chooses to they can take the information that I presented my articles rewrite it and place it on their own blog as long as it accurately depicts the fight against the registry they can even place their name on it I have no problem with that my goal is to get this type of information out to as many people as possible so that we can change the hearts and minds of the people making decisions that destroy registered citizens and their family members lives.

  4. In Search of Liberty
    June 27, 2017 at 11:41 am

    And as to Packingham v. North Carolina, that was a great win for Mr. Packingham and his legal team and especially for First Amendment freedoms for sure; however, and not to diminish this win, Packingham could be considered a Great White; however, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in Does v. Snyder and currently waiting in the wings before SCOTUS, can be considered, in my opinion, a blue whale! Snyder will, again in my opinion, has the potential to FREE RSOs from state sponsored terrorism or doom them to even more repressive restrictions because believe you me, if SCOTUS overturns the 6th Circuit’s ruling, watch what states, especially here in the old “Confederate (racey) ” does. Pay Attention people! A rebuff by SCOTUS of the 6th Circuit will bring into 2018 America a 1930’s Nazi style roundup of RSOs to be, as were the Jews, herded on trains to concentration camps! Don’t think states will go to that extreme? I hope the heel you’re right because if not that’s exactly where RSOs are going. Think about it, where else can state legislatures go with sex offender (SO) laws? States already have: registration, residency restrictions, travel restrictions, place restrictions, GPS monitoring, employment restrictions, Polygraphs that RSOs pay for, forced treatment classes that RSO pay for, in person reporting (some people quarterly, some annually), not to mention what these laws do to an RSO’s family–need I say more? To RSOs out there you know the S#@! you’re going through with the state, I don’t have to tell you this. But I’m telling you right now, and you should know that there is HATE directed towards you, that if SCOTUS overturns Snyder that states, in order to inflict further punishment will start looking at Nazi style concentration camps, if they haven’t already, I mean, where else can they go with these laws but further down the hole??? Now, if you believe that the states are going hold the line, stop where their at, and say, “…well you know, RSOs have it hard enough, we don’t think any more restrictive measures are necessary…” well then in my opinion you’d be damn fool to think so. Yes, if SCOTUS throws out Snyder there will be another round of state sponsored terrorism on RSOs. Let us pray.

  5. Kayt
    June 27, 2017 at 2:31 pm

    Dear Concerned Reader,

    I double clicked on the graphic and it was as clear as anything could ever be. Not all people are professional writers, not everyone worries that much about every dotted i and every crossed t. I thought that this article was a very good one.

    I am just curious, have you ever been a member of Sosen? It seems that I’ve known someone in the forum that had similar things to say not so long ago.

Comments are closed.