Today I became painfully aware of the failing of registry advocate groups not to get pertinent information and press that that information is extremely important to defense attorneys. This realization comes about because of a simple statement by judge Judge Hamilton of the seventh circuit court. Where he pressed A.G. Schmelzer on whether there is current empirical data to back up the notion that GPS monitoring reduces the recidivism rates of certain sex offenders, saying that high levels of recidivism is “very convenient to use” to justify GPS monitoring, but wondered whether it could still survive constitutional analysis if those recidivism rates were disproven.
Looking at even though limited studies that are out there the re-offense rate prior to the registry and since the registry has not changed it is still lower than any other criminal class and those limited studies do not even begin to tell the whole true story. What is a limited study it is study that only looks at people coming out of prison or people involved in treatment programs or people on probation or parole. They do not give the whole picture of the people affected by the registry. Limited studies do not take into account the large number of people who have been on the registry for a long period of time and not committed a new offense. They also do not take into account the amount of collateral damage that has been done to the offender, family members, friends and employers.
There is to my knowledge only one true study of people on the registry that is everyone that is on the registry and that is the Nebraska study (Nebraska sex offender registry) that looked at the entire registry for the state of Nebraska going back to 1971 yes there are people on the Nebraska registry whose crime happened in 1971. And in that entire time the average yearly re-offense rate was 6/10 of 1% and that is with the registry increasing in size every year. For more information see these articles.
This is the information that should have been given to the defense attorneys at the outset of this case and that information should have been presented to the court making it impossible for the state to claim any kind of high recidivism rate for any group. The information should’ve also been passed along about the actual truth about the limited studies so that they could not be placed on the court record because they do not meet the Delbert’s standard.
What is a limited study to give you an example you want to find out how safe American-made cars are and instead of looking at the record for all American-made cars you only look at the record for the Pinto and the Corvair. If a study does not look at the entire vista that would be affected by the information then it is a limited study it is also limited if it uses manipulation of numbers such as adding percentages together instead of real numbers and manipulation of those numbers through the adversarial alliances. This information is also covered in the above articles.
1 comment for “Painfully aware of the failing of anti-registry advocate groups.”