Ever have Your Fortune Told?

Human beings have the habit of wanting somebody to be omniscient In powers to predict the future. When you think of a fortuneteller you think of a Gypsy type woman in a dark room with a turbine on her head sitting in front of a crystal ball. We know in our hearts that these people are charlatans, whether they use a crystal ball, tarot cards, numerology, Or our astrological signs.

Why then should we put any more faith into forensic psychologists who disregard the limits of science by overstating the accuracy of risk assessments and inventing pretextual disorders to justify preventive detention? They even claim to have same truth telling powers regarding future dangerousness based on unsubstantiated allegations.

I for one have no faith in the soft science of psychiatry and psychology. There is too high of a margin for error and they tend to error on the side of their own well-being, not that of the people that they’re supposed to be helping. As for the reliability of risk assessment tools, a recent study of the effectiveness of these tools showed none to be of any value.
Effectiveness of risk assessments


Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) note only effective for you youth offenders who have already committed a violent crime (no Brainier)
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) note seems to be only used for mentally institutionalized persons (again no Brainier)
Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) associated with spousal assault (again no Brainier)
Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (HCR-20)
Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG)
Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20)
Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R)
Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R)


Tool                 Accuracy percentage
SAVRY                           83%
VRAG                             70%
SARA                             65%
HCR – 20                       63%
SORAG                          62%
Static-99                        47%
SVR – 20                       41%
PCL – R                         36%
LS I – R                          30%

The people claiming the effectiveness of risk assessment tools are members of the same group that in the 1990s were telling everyone how dangerous and how untreatable people involved in sex crimes were. They didn’t know what they were doing back then any more than they do now.

Take a look at the J.J. Peters 10 year follow-up report where the psychiatrist rated the high risk members of a state hospital treatment group and then later their arrest records were looked into.  The ones the psychiatrist rated best in their therapy re-offended at 50%, those second best at 69.8%, and those that the psychiatrist rated as doing worst in their therapy re-offended at 35%.  These therapist are in control of others lives and in order to get more control they continue to feed the Criminal Justice System and the public misleading information.  This type of thinking in anybody else the therapist would call diversion, justification and minimization. One study that they have refused to do is to look into the possibility that their treatment programs are causing PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder, and this is the reason for the higher reoffense rate in people completing  Behavior Modification programs than those who have no treatment Most of the treatments are like Clock Work Orange with their procedure verging on torture with their sadistic use of electro shock aversion, foul taste aversion, ammonia nitrate conditioning, and aggressive confrontational conditioning. note that the first three, when used in conjunction with people in confinement have been deemed by the Federal courts are as being a violation of the eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment (Knecht v Gillman 488 F3d 1136 “any adverse stimuli constitutes cruel and unusual punishment… behavior modification by adverse stimuli is highly questionable technique. In that only a 20 to 50% success is claimed that it is used is really punishment worse than control beatings”)(Green versus Baron 662 federal supplement 1378 . (“When a mental patient is  intentionally subjected to harsher conditions in order to deter them from a maintain course of conduct. The fact that it is done in the name of psychiatric treatment does not keep it from being intentional punishment “). And yet treatment providers outside of the prison system and mental hospitals continue to use these practices. even though their clients have been forced into treatment by either court orders or parole and probation.

The widely recognized researcher on psychological evaluation Robyn M. Dawes in his book” House of Cards Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth”, stated “A person who claims that a treatment is effective must demonstrate that it has an effect in comparison to a hypothetical counterfactual, obtained through construction of a randomly constituted control group.” Such randomized experiments are very necessary in evaluating treatments for emotional disorders and one of the best is what is called a “Wait List Control”.  This was used in the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative study from 1984, the people who had completed treatment re-offended in a sex crime at 13.6% and other crimes at 18.6%.  Those who did not complete treatment at 6.5% for sex offense and 12.9% for other crimes, and those that were on the list but did not get into treatment re-offended in sex crimes at 5%, and other crimes at 0%.  The more the treatment, the more the criminal activity! On page 20 of the “sex Offenders in Oregon” the statement is made “Most studies nationally reported rates ranging from 27.6% to 41.0% for subsequent offense.”  They did not point out that those numbers are only for persons in treatment. The jacks study in 1962 looked into non-treated offenders showed the re-offense rate of 3.7% over 15 years that’s 2/10 of 1% per year , this must be used as the base line set as laid out by Robyn Dawes  any treatment program with a reoffence rate higher then 3.7% for a 15 year period must be consider a failure of the program not the individuals in it.

This brings us to the case of Markis Revland, a habitual criminal who faced civil detention after serving time for child pornography possession

U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman systematically analyzed and rejected the evidence as failing to meet the government’s burden of proof. Not only did the government fail to show that Revland had a serious mental disorder that put him at high risk of molesting children if released, it even failed to prove that the convict had engaged in any hands-on child molestation in the past

The court finds that all of the 149 incidents reported by respondent … were the product of his imagination, not actual events.

In addition to his conviction for child pornography, Revland had two prior convictions for indecent exposure. However, the most damning evidence against him was his own admissions, made during sex offender treatment at the federal prison in Butner, North Carolina, that he had committed 149 additional incidents of sexual abuse of children of various ages.

The court stated that Revland was desperate to enroll in Butner’s treatment program in order to escape the infamous federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, where he feared for his life after being beaten and raped at knifepoint by fellow prisoners. Once at Butner, he felt compelled to fabricate “a long list of sex offenses,” lest he be deemed uncooperative and returned to Leavenworth.

The offenses that he described in great detail were implausible, in that he was serving a prior, 10-year prison term for cocaine at around the same time that he claimed to be running around molesting children

The court further stated The reported incidents were not only too numerous to believe but also recounted – years afterwards – far too precisely, with respondent providing the age of the victim, the time of day … when each offense occurred, and the location where each incident allegedly occurred…. And yet the government offered no evidence to independently verify that any of these incidents occurred or that any of them – even one – ever resulted in investigation or prosecution.

As a group, Butner offenders have confessed to an unusually high number of undetected sex crimes, leading Scientists to suspect that the widely publicized numbers are unreliable. Critics say treatment providers at the federal institution pressured prisoners to report as many offenses as possible, lest they be accused of not cooperating And thereby removed from the program.

Finally, the judge rejected the claims of two government psychologists that two so-called actuarial instruments, the Static-99R and the MnSOST-R, showed Revland to be at high risk for recidivism.

The Judge said the risk assessments by both Dr. Manuel Gutierrez, a Board of Prisons employee, and contract psychologist Jeffrey Davis were “particularly unreliable in the present case because they both assumed that [Revland] is a pedophile with numerous ‘hands-on’ victims, whereas the court has rejected both of these premises.”

The judge did concede that the convict met the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, but he found that such a diagnosis was irrelevant:

The essence of this disorder is that the patient “fail[s] to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.” Dr. [Jeffrey] Singer testified that the vast majority of prison inmates have this disorder, as they are in prison for breaking the law and failing to conform to social norms. Dr. [Joseph] Plaud testified that there is no documented causal link, in this case or in general, between antisocial personality disorder and sexual dangerousness. The court credits these experts’ opinions.

7 comments for “Ever have Your Fortune Told?

  1. Scott
    March 18, 2019 at 2:44 am

    This is why its called a come to Jesus moment or Time. If God will bring you to it, God will bring you through it. We just need to give it all to him and let him bless us in His timing Not ours.

  2. AC
    March 20, 2019 at 1:01 pm

    In regards to the point on the 8th Ammendment: Prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment –

    One can probably easily predict what some citizens might say. It will go something like the following:

    1 – “Who gives a fuck if it’s cruel and unusual? If it’s done on chomos and pedophiles, IT’S WORTH IT!!!!1!”
    2 – “Well, ‘pedophiles’ don’t want to play by the rules, either; so, the legals have the right to work the law to benefit the public!”

    Yes, ladies and gentleman. Many of these big-chested prejudicial imbeciles will actually say this! Sad reality of the United States’s fear-mongering, but very much true.

    One could of course dismiss these as nothing more than willing trolls. All too often, however, one gets the uncanny feeling that they really do mean it.

    One also has to note – Their so-claimed “pedophiles” majorly include those who –

    1 – have merely watched/possess child porn, but have made no physical contact
    2 – have had no actual form of violent sex with a child
    3 – were drunk and was initiated BY the child; while being accused that the adult “should have known better”

    Among various other items.

    Yup. The idiots mean to include THESE “pedophiles” amoung those deserving cruel and unusual punishment.
    Again, summing the reality of American imbecilic fear-mongering. Sad, but true.

  3. Scott
    March 22, 2019 at 2:19 am

    People these days are in a culture of payback. Whether its abuse by physical harm or by playing with someones mind and bashing them through bullying. Yes that includes churches. If Jesus was to walk into most churches today, I dont think he would be accepted or welcomed.

    I dont trust anyone much either as long as i am not worthy at the chance of trust myself. You have to Cover Your A**. Better known as CYA as best you can.

    • AC
      April 10, 2019 at 8:20 am

      Yes, Scott. They most definitely are.

      And, if we “chomos” and “child rapists” (and those alleged to be) were to play the exact same game, it would not only be illegal to bully, more than the bulk of U. S. citizens would be convicted and incarcerated for doing so;

      since sex offender legislation is, quite frighteningly, just that: institutionalized bullying.

  4. MARK S.
    March 24, 2019 at 12:18 pm

    Upon entering prison for being an “offender,” you get orientated, and then they will demand you to participate in offender SOTP. (sex offender treatment program). But first you will need to sign a form indicating you are an “offender.” The contents of that form (at least the one they tried to intimidate me to sign informed me that by signing, I would clearly admit I was “sick,” Isic), and that I needed treatment for the rest of one’s life. Which actually means a person will be under the governments thumb as it is now conclusively presumed you will never be trusted around the type of victim(s) that were perpetrated against. Also, the form if signed would require you to “admit” (sic), any and all crimes you were never caught doing. And God forbid you deny every doing anything else you actually never did. Upon entering these SOTP groups you are then required to “confess” your criminal sins to others in a group but the therapists monitor your vocalizations to see if you are rationalizing the crime(s) convicted of. Then there is the constant psychological pounding by staff and therapists to constantly confess your crime or crimes and tell them everything and again including all those crimes committed one was not caught as yet. (Until you spill the beans on yourself.). Next comes the evaluations as Will above has written about. The interesting thing about those “evaluations” is the fact, at least when I was confined back in 1985, is that no one ever spoke to me in person, and had face-to-face evaluations, talks, etc at all These evaluations were done virtually, and totally from the record before them – that is the criminal record(s); any other papers that were accumulated during court times, etc. Thus, whatever numbers that were produced in these evaluations as Will wrote about above were then “etched” in stone. And the therapists operated from that field. Thus, no matter what you said, or could say was a “moot” point… This is the tip of the iceberg I went through starting in 1985…. There is so much more but it would take up two more pages. In any event, I suspect these Offender treatment groups and these evaluations make it appear that something is being done about sexual crimes. Further, it really does look good on paper; tons of federal cash flowing; a cottage industry for therapists, probation officers, more parole officers (this is yet another story in and of itself), GPS, ad nauseum. A cynical point of view? Hardy. By the way, just a thought here: THERAPIST —– THE RAPISTS……….

    • Scott
      March 27, 2019 at 8:22 am

      It is a catch 22 when you join or are mandated these types of government programs. I have seen traps set for me as well. They really think they are smarter than you but in actuality they are not. They only know what you did wrong and feel like they play the God role as if they can and will fix or figure you out.

      They arent doing anything as far as i am concerned. Its all point the finger at someone else and see what they did bad and public shame them the rest of their life motive. Just look at the sex driven music and TV and other things that are plaguing our children. Lets not forget about the violence either. I agree with the Therapists = The Rapists. They totally rob you of your mental intellect and try to use it against you as if they have the much better solution.

      • AC
        April 10, 2019 at 8:15 am

        I do third Mark S’s and Scott’s motion on therapists raping the sound, innocent and otherwise decently intellectual minds of gov.-labeled sex offenders. As a CP convict, I’ve been asked more than a dozen times by mine what my ages of attraction are. I provided the genuine range of legal early 20’s to 40’s adults. The therapist’s regular response is, “adult male pornography is not illegal. If that is your range of attraction, you wouldn’t have been arrested and convicted, and you wouldn’t be where you are right now.” (In sex offender group session, the therapist means. Ha!)

        One thing the therapist consistently fails to consider/acknowledge is:

        – Her statement would only be plausible if one commits a CP possession ‘crime’ out of sexual compulsion. (In fact, I never admitted, nor CAN I admit, that I possessed CP out of sexual gratification; because it’s simply not true. Sorry, dude. No matter what kind of tactics you try on me to self-incriminate myself, I’m simply not sexually interested in ‘children’.)

        – My police report deliberately stated that, after extensive investigation at the schools I worked at, I wasn’t found to have sexually molested any of the kids I tutored

        – I’ve never stated that the CP on my computer was mine. The police expressedly found that I never produced any of the CP found on my computer. (Especially having direct contact with kids. Hmmm…)

        Every time I get this shrink trying to imply me that I’m not accurately participating in the program unless I admit to some horrid attraction (which, again, don’t exist), my intellectual skills just get dumber.

Comments are closed.