Shake the Foundation, Change the World.

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 highhave 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.


Cited Materials:

, .



The New York Times article: Sex Offenders Locked Up on a Hunch
The Avvo Naked Law Blog: The system for punishing sex offenders is broken
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





State studies:
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.!8635&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

AZ 05.5 % Sex offender recidivism Arizona Department of Corrections note bottom of 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 % Figure 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  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.!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  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.!8622&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

DE 3.8% Re-arrest table 7: Recidivism of Delaware adult sex offenders released from prison in 2001 July 2007.!8621&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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.!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

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.!8619&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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.!8618&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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.!8617&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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.!8616&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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.!8935&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

IN page 22 05.7% Recidivism rates compared 2005-2007 Indiana Department of Corrections!8936&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

ME 03.8% Page 12: 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 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

MN 5.7 % Table 2 page 21: Over 12 years 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 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.!8607&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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.!8604&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf
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.!8603&cid=a754c96e86e37f71&app=WordPdf

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: for more info.

42 comments for “Shake the Foundation, Change the World.

  1. charles
    November 24, 2015 at 7:51 am

    Yes, the above information is spot on. It is well researched, it is rational, and it is factual; however, it is no good! Why? Well, you call me a conspiracy theorist, you call me negative, you can call me a fool but in the end you WILL call me right. To the justices on the US Supreme Court who ruled in the 2003 Smith v Doe case that SO laws were civil/regulatory in nature and not PUNISHMENT and after which opened the door to all SO laws in America, all the above facts, figures and statistics are not worth a Mexican paso during a depression. Understand this people, it was John Roberts, now chief justice, who argued the case before a Rehnquest court and then was appointed by King George (Bush) II to the highest seat on the court. One could say that this case (Smith) was Justices Robert’s Super Bowl win, his NBA title, his no hitter in the World Series, his last second winning goal in the Stanley Cup. Therefore, do you honestly believe that if and when a case were to be brought before the court challenging his claim to fame that he is going to roll-over and say “Oh, you guys are right, SO laws are unconstitutional, they do in fact violate the Ex Post Facto clause when applied to people after their conviction and sentence, also, they violate Due Process, and Equal Protection too, and yes of course, SO laws are punishment, so lets strike them all down…” Dahhhh, I don’t think so. And to prove this out, try to get any of the justices, including Roberts, to just read and study all the above information. Sounds simple minded yes, but if you can’t get case before the court and show by the “CLEAREST OF PROOF” that SO laws are indeed punishment which then opens the door to then argue Ex Post Facto and Due process violations, then it is as I say, all the above facts, figures and statistics are not worth a Mexican paso during a depression.

    • Will Bassler
      November 24, 2015 at 9:20 am

      charles if everyone took that attitude then nothing would ever happen I for one a.m. not going to give up even Supreme Court cases have been overturned by later Supreme Court’s and since John Roberts played a pivotal role in Smith versus Doe he would have to excuse himself from making any decisions related to overturning that decision if we rack up enough cases within the states court’s and in the federal lower courts and they all produce this information then I firmly believe that we will prove to not only the courts but to the American people that the rationale for the existence of the registry is in fact what it is a myth.

    • Scott Roberson
      November 24, 2015 at 9:33 am

      Charles you are forgetting that Roberts would have to excuse himself from making decisions regarding the overturning of his “NBA Win”

  2. charles
    November 24, 2015 at 11:50 am

    Excellent comments both; Will’s optimizism, Scott’s legal incite on justice Robert’s having to RECUSE (not excuse) himself [re·cuse—verb, challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.] But I am still not convinced Will, Scott. Will, sorry but your comment holds no juice, Scott’s point is moot because you first have to get to SCOTUS with a damn good constitutional argument so in my opinion, the reality on the ground is this: it’s going to take a team of brilliant constitutional lawyers to first have the right case in order to file a writ of certiorari to take on appeal to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) from a lower federal court decision affirming the constitutionality the sex offender registry (SOR). Then, file whatever motions or pleadings it takes to show that the Chief Justice if the United Supreme Court is 1) unqualified to perform his legal duties, 2) will have a conflict of interest, and 3) lack of impartially in the case before him. Yeah, good luck with that!!! I’m just saying you guys, lets not be foolish here, use your heads. First, if we assume that these men are intelligent, then we should also assume that they knew full well that their ruling in Smith was bad law. I mean how could you possibly say that the SOR and it’s component parts is not punitive and did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when applied to someone after their conviction and sentence, and then say that the SOR does not violate Substantive and Procedural Due Process? I mean come on! Those two points stand out like a 5,000 lb elephant standing in Times Square at 12 noon. So I’m going to say with certainty that these guys knew full well what they were going to do before evern hearing the case. And I also, believe the six justices that upheld Smith was pissed-off at the three dessenting justices Stevens, Ginsbrg and Breyer (all who got it right)for not making it a unanimous decision but you’ll never know that publically. I’ll give you this though Will and Scott, if you could somehow get the case before these three and convince say, Sotomayor, Alito and maybe Kagan to turncoat then I believe there is a shot at overturn Smith. Otherwise….

    • Scott Roberson
      November 24, 2015 at 12:03 pm

      Charles, the government has forgotten and so have the people, that the people themselves do not realize the power they hold. If you make a light shine bright enough everyone notices and will want to know what it is coming from. I am not saying that it wont take an extremely good group of lawyers to make something happen, but what I am saying is that about 75% of the population have never known that the recidivism rates originally given were wrong. What it takes is someone with enough fortitude to not back down and force the government to remember they only exist because the American people let them exist, they have over stepped their boundaries for far to long.

      • Eddie
        November 25, 2015 at 12:47 pm

        Republicanism is the guiding political philosophy of the United States. It has been a major part of American civic thought since its founding.[1] It stresses liberty and “unalienable” rights as central values, making people sovereign as a whole, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.[2] American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. For them, according to one team of historians, “republicanism represented more than a particular form of government. It was a way of life, a core ideology, an uncompromising commitment to liberty, and a total rejection of aristocracy.”[3]

        Republicanism was based on Ancient Greco-Roman, Renaissance, English models and ideas.[4] It formed the basis for the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence (1776), the Constitution (1787), as well as the Gettysburg Address (1863).[5]

        Republicanism may be distinguished from other forms of democracy as it asserts that people have unalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.[6] Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the “tyranny of the majority” in a democracy, and suggested the courts should try to reverse the efforts of the majority of terminating the rights of an unpopular minority.[7]

        And there you have IT. A registry for criminals is unconstitutional, but they get away with it because we are the pariahs AKA “UNPOPULAR MINORITY” And the courts no longer are defending our rights against the “Tyranny of the majority.” If they tried this (having a registry) with all crimes this would be abolished in a heartbeat. But the reason they get away with this is actually propaganda used from a Tyrant who knew how to manipulate like a fallen angel parading as light:

        “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” Adolf Hitler

  3. Paul
    November 24, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    Great article Scott and excellent statistics. The fear mongers usually try to counter these statistics by saying that sex offenses are the most underreported crime. Therefore it is impossible to believe these statistics are truly valid because we don’t know how often they are being committed. How do I know that? Because I’ve read enough briefs and memos coming from US Attorney’s offices and state prosecutors to know that THAT is how they counter this argument. But even if you were to say, “okay it is underreported, we’ll give you that”… CANNOT possibly justify their argument that we recidivate at a higher rate than anyone else. Because if you really think it through rationally, sex offenders would be most likely reported MORE than any other group due to our restrictions when it comes to being around children. Very rarely does a sex offender spend time with other people’s children without that family knowing that a person is indeed on the registry.

    So this is a start. We need to begin debunking the “incurable” argument which is what the public feeds upon to justify the “castrate him” and “send him to the death chamber” comments on social media when they hear about a sex offender accused of committing a crime. But we also need to debunk the “underreported” argument as being flawed because even if there is truth to it, it cannot possibly raise the recidivism rates as high as they claim.

    • Will Bassler
      November 24, 2015 at 3:10 pm

      underreporting like the high re-offense rate myth is not based on any factual evidence and when called on this underreporting myth and force to show to show proof positive that it exists and that if it does exist that it only pertains to registered citizens. this like the high re-offense rate one dissolves into nothingness. First of all it needs to be challenged in the courts when somebody presents this evidence as factual our attorneys must demand that they show proof that there is in fact multiple studies showing through statistics that there is in fact a underreporting statistics and that those are directly linked to registered citizens. I know a number of studies have made the comment about underreporting but none of them have been able to show that it in fact exists and remember theories and conjecture are not admissible into court proceedings. We need to arm the attorneys who work for our cause with this information so that they can stand up to the lies put forth by the government.

      • Paul
        November 24, 2015 at 7:02 pm

        I agree. U.S Attorneys and state prosecutors should be challenged when they make the underreporting argument and they make it all too often. I probably have seen it made in memos at least five times which leads me to believe it is rather commonplace and what they rely upon most to counter the low recidivism statistics which are actually based in fact, unlike their conjecture. Defense attorneys usually don’t respond to it in their reply briefs because…..well…..frankly, they just don’t know how to counter it. Again, even if we concede there is a hint of truth to what they are saying, it would raise the recidivism rates ever so slightly. Certainly for registered citizens, the change would be negligible.

  4. Paul
    November 24, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    The “incurable” argument is perhaps our greatest obstacle. Sex offenders are approached from a medical model; a disease based model. It’s why some people are put on supervision for life. Do they really need it? Of course not. But if it is a disease, it always needs to be monitored. These statistics should indeed “shake the foundation” when it comes to this myth, as Scott says. But again, we also need to focus on debunking the so called “underreported” argument as well. This is, at least to me, is our second greatest obstacle.

  5. charles
    November 24, 2015 at 2:06 pm

    Ok Scott, I’ll concede that point. Here is a bit of wisdom in line with your thinking that you may want to chew on: “Men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot.” Alexander Pope said this.

  6. charles
    November 25, 2015 at 7:54 am

    Excuse me but I’d like to ask a couple of stupid questions on this “most underreported crime” thing: The people who put forth this assertion, are they clairvoyant, possess ESP, at the scene of the underreported crime when it happens? I mean, doesn’t it stand to reason that in order for this underreported assertion to have any validity to it, the person/people who espose it would have to know first hand that a crime has been commited and that the victim of the crime did not report it? I’m just saying. I mean, if these people who put this underreported thing out there are sitting at home watching “Dancing with The Stars” at night and then at their respective office or place of employment the next day, how the hell do they know the who the waht and then when of a crime and that it went unreported??? Couldn’t have got it from thier location new station or CNN or Fox news because guess why? The crime went, tah daaa, Unreported! So this leads me to know that this underreporting assertion is what spys call a “Double Blind”, what magicians call “Sleight of Hand” but what I call it is B.S.!!!

    • Will Bassler
      November 25, 2015 at 9:19 am

      if there is a VALID study out there to justify the underreporting comment then the obvious thing is that of the new convictions for sex crimes each year over 99% of them are not people that are on the registry. so it would follow that if there is unreported sex crimes that 99% of them are done by people not on the registry. and if there is underreporting and attorneys want to point to it they also have to prove in a court that the underreporting is specific to people on the registry and quite obviously there is no way to do that. Again theory and conjecture are not accepted in a court of law. The reason I say valid study is because there are studies out there that use a number of specific questions and are asked in specific ways to get the results that they want it is easy to set up a study and by wording the questions in certain ways you will get the response that you want.

  7. charles
    November 25, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Nice work Will, but can you answer the question: wouldn’t you have to know personally, or have first hand knowledge of a crime that has been commited and that the victim of the crime will not or did not report the crime in order for you to assert that there was an unreported/underreported crime? I mean that makes prefect sense to me. Otherwise you’re just making S%#! up to shore up your assertion which has no validity. To me a legitimate way to give this type of assertion validity would be to gather, in my opinion, 400-500 crime victims (from all over the country) at a conference of some type and just ask if they reported the crime that they were a victim of. If say 60%- 75% said no, they did not report then hey, I guess they have a legit argument for the unreported crime thing. I don’t know if that makes sense to anyone else but I just see how you can make this assertion stick otherwise. Like I say, you would be just making S%#! up to shore up your assertion.

    • Paul
      November 25, 2015 at 11:07 am

      I’ll try to answer that. The assertion or myth that these prosecutors use CANNOT be proved in any given case. It is merely meant as rhetorical device. Usually this comes up at sentencing where a defense attorney cites low recidivism rates as to why a client should get a more lenient sentence and underreporting is usually the reply of the prosecutors. In reality, in any given case, it cannot be proved unless there is someone to testify. Regardless, even though the prosecutors are not citing it for evidentiary purposes, it does come up as a matter of rhetoric. The argument falls apart when we look at registered citizens who are scrutinized more closely than any class of citizens. I doubt very highly if one of us were to reoffend, it would go unreported most of the time. Therefore as I said, even if you were to concede to the fact that some crimes (in general) go unreported, it wouldn’t change things much.

      I would implore something for SOSEN to write an article addressing this topic to counter the myth of underreporting and its effect on low recidivism statistics. Because if we can’t defeat this underreported myth, low statistics will only get us so far.

    • Scott Roberson
      November 26, 2015 at 11:23 am

      Charles, The bottom line is that no war has ever been won by those hiding in the shadows to afraid to make the stand against tyranny. You shine a light upon the REAL truth and people take notice. Enough people take notice and it makes its way up the food chain. I distinctly remember something about fighting domestic terrorism.

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke

  8. Kayt
    November 25, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    On October 29, 1941, U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill visited Harrow School to to hear the traditional songs he had sung there as a youth, as well as to speak to the students. When he was invited to give a speech, Churchill stood before the students and said,

    “Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, give up. Never give up. Never give up. Never give up.”

    To be successful in your life and business, here is what Winston Churchill told us:

    “The pessimist sees the problems in every opportunity. Whereas the optimist sees the opportunity in every problem”

    “Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”

  9. Kayt
    November 25, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Quoting Scott Roberson: “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.”

    What I really believe is that we need to believe that we can win or we never will!

    I want to share what has helped me with this world of sex offender oppression. They haven’t destroyed my life yet. Close but no cigar! And the last time I noticed, everyone here at Sosen are also still standing!

    If we want to win we’ve got to start believing that we can. The spoken word and the written word is the most powerful tool and negative destroys, positive builds. If we think we can win we will but no one can do it alone and we need to find a way to build the positive force that we need.

    If you think you are beaten, you are,
    If you think you dare not, you don’t
    If you like to win, but you think you can’t,
    It is almost certain you won’t.

    If you think you’ll lose, you’re lost.
    For out in the world we find,
    Success begins with a fellow’s will –
    It’s all in the state of mind.

    If you think you are outclassed, you are,
    You’ve got to think high to rise,
    You’ve got to be sure of yourself before
    You can ever win a prize.

    Life’s battles don’t always go
    To the stronger or faster man,
    But soon or late the man who wins
    Is the man who thinks he can!

  10. Alan Davis
    November 26, 2015 at 7:48 am

    The one truth about underreported sexual crime is that it has certainly increased some due to the registry.

    Since most sexual crimes occur within the family or through close and known associations and since most people know at least one person who is on the registry, I have no doubt that there are now many families that upon realizing that sexual abuse has occurred between people they greatly care for, they now often make the decision to “hide the shame” and not put the family through what they see others linked to the registry forced to endure.

    • Paul
      November 27, 2015 at 6:30 pm

      I hate to say it but the Duggars are a prime example of this phenomena. Criticize them all you want but they illustrate how the burdens of the registry can actually discourage reporting. I also think the sister had forgiven her brother but there is no doubt that her nor her parents wanted to see Josh saddled for the rest of his life with the label we all have the privilege of living with.

  11. John
    November 27, 2015 at 2:18 am

    To answer your question about where the under-reporting stats come from – victimization studies. That is, researchers will ask a statistically significant amount (hopefully) of people in the general public whether they’ve ever been the victim of sexual abuse. If they answer “yes” then there are follow up questions, such as “Did you report this abuse to the authorities.”
    Those answers are extrapolated to the population as a whole and compared against the number of crimes actually reported.

    Its a fairly solid way of getting at the difference between reported and unreported numbers come from – provided that there are no problems with the victimization studies themselves. Sadly, there often are. Its been awhile since I’ve looked at them, and so I would need to dig it up if you wanted me to cite my sources, but I recall one of the bigger and most influencial victimization study was so broad in its definition of sexual abuse that 59% of respondents who answered yes to their definition of abuse said that they were “uneffected and unbothered” by the “abuse” and that other researchers accused the study of “attempting to criminalize social clumsiness.”

  12. Sharon
    November 27, 2015 at 8:05 am


    Do those who do these studies when they ask about being the victim of sexual abuse ask people if knowing what the registry does to families has anything to do with their decision to not report?

    If people don’t report because they don’t want to create problems with the registry, then it’s another story and if the stats are high enough it would be one huge argument against the registry.

    I have read stories about people truly regretting their Romeo and Juliet reports to the police or talking about it in counseling because they didn’t know how the system works. People talk about the registry but many truly believe that only the worst of the worst rapist, child abductors and knife rapists are on the RSO registry.

    I have read that most people who tangle with the registry and learn the hard way because of a child or other loved one’s convictions
    are surprised when they find out what the registry really is but then they don’t want to tell their family, friends and neighbors about what they’ve learned the hard way because then everybody will know their secrets.

    The angry people who are making a lot of noise because they don’t have a lot to lose are not well understood or believed either.

    • John
      November 28, 2015 at 5:21 am

      To my knowledge none of the studies have asked about the registry as a reason not to report.

      • Will Bassler
        November 29, 2015 at 12:45 pm

        My first point is that many of the studies are done in such a way that they can project the outcome. And because of adversarial alliance slant the results in such a way that is not in fact true. This is especially true when asking subjective questions rather than dealing with statistical data, even with true statistical data studies . The numbers can be misinterpreted or manipulated to show an incorrect result or to hide a result of that is unpalatable to the people paying for this study or doing a study.

        One of the studies that I read about, that was basically debunked by pear groups was one done on a college campus to see how many people had been sexually misconduct. The questions were written in such a way that that receiving unwanted a hug or a kiss on the cheek was considered unwanted sexual contact as well as being in a line with a group of people and having a body part touched accidentally was also considered unwanted sexual contact . The results of the study word that three or four out of every five people reported sexual abuse. I’m just surprised that it wasn’t five out of five. The way the questions were posed . The other thing is taking specific groups of people such as people in school , who have a tendency to want to fit in and be part of the group and using only small numbers slants the outcome of studies

        My second point is that even if they play this card of underreported. Sexual offenses, considering the low recidivism of people on the registry in comparison to the general population without actually including something within the study to point to registered citizens . As the ones being involved in these underreported crimes. There should not be the assumption that they are the ones that are doing it.

        My last point is, when looking at the studies you need to look at the credentials of the people that are involved in. If they in any way are involved in victims advocacy or treatment programs or they have a fiduciary interest in keeping the myth alive than their studies should be looked at with a highly critical eye. And not just taken at face value

        • Paul
          November 29, 2015 at 1:14 pm

          Case in point, the Butner Study, which didn’t have anything to do with undereporting but was taken as Gospel by legislators and has influenced public policy tremendously, even though it was based on flawed data. Whenever I see the author of a study is a prison psychologist, works in corrections or is someone connected with victim advocacy groups, I factor author bias into the equation.

          • Paul
            November 29, 2015 at 1:16 pm

            Actually, I take that back. It had to do with undereporting to the extent that the so called “subjects” of the study were said to have undereported their crimes until they unknowingly participated in the Butner Study.

          • Will Bassler
            November 29, 2015 at 1:39 pm

            To a person who has spent their live believing in hard science and not pseudoscience or other of the black arts To even mention this study (the Butner Study) raises the hair on the back of my neck. This study has been thoroughly debunked and has even been thrown out as a useful study within federal court cases

        • Paul
          November 29, 2015 at 2:23 pm

          “This study has been thoroughly debunked and has even been thrown out as a useful study within federal court cases

          Thanks Will! The website you provided is very useful. I appreciate that and will refer to it.. I’m sure you are also familiar with Richard Wollert’s critique of the Butner Redux Study.

          To me, Dr. Hernandez is a criminal. He used threats, intimidation, coercion and his authority to extract these false confessions from individuals who had no choice but to lie to save themselves. He clearly utilized demand characteristics which is a cardinal sin in science. Pipe dream, but I wish some class action law suit could be filed against him someday not only by the unknowing participants but by every person who has been directly or indirectly harmed by his fraudulence. US Attorneys to this day still try to use the study and judges routinely throw it out, although some still buy into its crap. It’s an abomination to science and all of humanity.

  13. November 27, 2015 at 9:48 am

    You have the facts, however those facts have been around for quite awhile. Anyone who’s done any research in the past ten years knows there has never a logical, factual foundation for the registry, and yet the registry not only continues to exist but continues to be strengthened.Are we really that surprised..?

    The fact is the vast majority people think former sex-offenders are monsters and a constant threat to their children. Some politicians and judges believe that as well, and others simply use that commonly-held belief for their personal advancement. Those politicians and judges who have some sanity left are incapacitated because they know they would be seen as soft on crime if they did anything to oppose S.O legislation. Now, that is the reality.

    So, what’s do be done? I’ll tell you, writing letters and signing petitions will do nothing. Here’s why: let’s say there are 1 million ex-offenders on the American registry. Let’s say they all sign a petition (which in itself would be a miracle). Now let’s do the impossible and have four family members/friends, for each ex-offender, sign that petition. Now, we have 5 million signatures on that petition. What will that achieve? Absolutely nothing. And why? Because there are 200 million other Americans who sincerely believe that these ex-offenders are constantly on the prowl with the intention to rape and possibly murder their children.

    I wrote a letter last year, to many ex-offender support groups. I told them the above argument and I proposed a tentative solution. It would be a long, slow and difficult path (which is likely why no one choose to follow the path), but I believe it would at least ensure a modicum of success. We have to invoke change in the grassroots. Peoples perceptions have to be change. They need to be made aware of the fact (and facts are what we DO have on our side right now) that most sex-offenders never re-offend, that most former offender represent no threat and they should not be on the registry, that treatment works for most, and that those few, truly dangerous offenders can be determined through risk-assessment and confined if necessary.

    Whenever I see an article which has anything to do with sexual offending I comment and post a list of facts, links to those facts and a link to my site for more information. Its a slow process but at least it’s a beginning and my site, and the facts, are getting noticed. Perhaps, in our lifetimes, if we all worked together, a lot of people will have heard the truth and maybe things can start to change. Until then, who’s going to read his posting? Who’s going to read the research? 99% of the population will do neither and so their beliefs will continue to be reinforced my the media and the politicians and nothing will change.


  14. Kayt
    November 29, 2015 at 7:45 am

    If signing petitions won’t do it, even if we could get the hundreds of thousands of RSO’s to sign and if each of those millions found four people who also sign a petition, one writer in this thread says that it won’t work because RSO’s are outnumbered by the masses.

    So, if there is a plan that WILL work, I need a reminder. Please tell me again like I was three. I’m open to old and new suggestions.

  15. Scott
    November 29, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    To dissolve the SO registry, It first needs to be abolished by our local and state levels of law enforcement with proof that the registry is simply too costly to keep up with before it is brought to a federal level.
    The money they pay these officers to run around and do verification of address changes and proof that the individuals lives their is just mind boggling. Especially the paper trail that could potentially be mis placed.

  16. November 30, 2015 at 8:43 am


    You said: “Please tell me again like I was three.” I’m not certain that was a genuine request for information – the wording makes me doubt in- which isn’t helpful. In any case, here’s my response:

    Scott Roberson makes a passionate and logical argument- and I certainly commend him for that. Yet, when he asks “So how do we attack the foundation of the laws?” his own answer is “… we realize our power as a group of citizens..” and “we must stand together and bring the false information … to the very doorstep of those who would squander our freedoms.” That sounds great but it certainly is not a definitive path to follow.

    Look, the information refuting the growing sex offender legislation has been in existence for at least a decade, and that information has done nothing to stop the legislation from expanding- and has certainly done absolutely nothing to roll-back any of the existing legislation. The only people who know about the research are the researchers themselves and people like us who have a vested interest in the results. The politicians and police either know nothing about the facts or don’t care- because when they make public statements they are almost entirely incorrect- when ever have you seen any of them publicly state that the registries are NOT needed and are NOT successful? The government spends hundreds of millions on registries that don’t work and they’re ok with that because they receive their funding and they look tough on crime. Treatment professionals are in the same boat as the politicians and the police- they know what would happen if they took a public stand that ran counter to the popular sex-offender hysteria myths; they would be lucky to keep their jobs. It wouldn’t surprise me if they ended up shot by some crazy vigilante.

    So, where does that leave the majority of the population? They’re certainly not reading these websites. What they are listening to is the public statements made by the politicians and the police. We all know this, there’s nothing new in what I’m telling you.

    I’ve seen the petitions and the court challenges. Where have they gotten us? The registries are still in place and as strong as ever. Your rights go out the door when they are put up against the argument “we have to protect the children”. Is anyone surprised by that? Of course not. As long as people believe that former sex offenders are a genuine threat to their children – and we know that people sincerely believe that- then nothing is going to change.

    So, where does that leave us? With the only option we have- we try to inform the population of the facts- the facts and the research that exists but no one hears. Every time a politician or cop or TV show/newspaper article makes a statement which we know to be incorrect, we correct them and point them to the facts. We blanket the internet with the facts. But in order to do that we better get organized and disseminate that information because if we don’t nothing will ever change.

    • Will Bassler
      November 30, 2015 at 12:01 pm

      Many of us out here and there are many of us . Not only respond in the comments sections of articles and against news stories. We put together information pertaining to the story with accurate pertinent information that they have got wrong, and send it to the editor and the author of the article. When ever possible. A number of us have been doing this for the last five years. Maybe that is why in the last three years that there have been so many stories written from the other side. I know of one person that wasn’t author of the story that I sent him information and the next story that he wrote for the same news organization had changed sides and was now pointing out the uselessness of the registry . This is something that everybody that has a computer can do. You don’t have to be tied in with some larger organization, who coordinates all that stuff. Just do it every time you see a myth based news article.

  17. charles
    November 30, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Forgive me for being a little nerve racketing with repeated attempts at trying to putforth an insight about the the designation “Sex Offend(er)” but something outside of me influences my behavior to do so. It concerns the suffix “ER” at the end of offend. Webster dictionary defines ER as …..a suffix used in forming nouns designating persons from the object of their occupation or labor….in other words, the designation sex offend(ER) denotes that you are ingaged in the practice of sex offending on a continuing bases, e.g., the designation firefight(er), or police offic(er) denotes that this is what they are and what they do on a continuing bases. When the state says that you are a sex offend(ER) they are telling the general public that this is what you do (sex offend) on a continuing bases, not that you sex offend(ED) past tense but that this is what you are currently doing so its no wonder the general public is wired up and crazy in the head about SOs waking the streets of their fair city, town, hovel. In the words of Al Capone when once referring to his nemesis Eliot Ness, …I want him dead, I want his family dead, I want his house burnt to the ground…” will, because of this offical state sponsored designation, I believe this type of sentiment is exactly how the general public feels about SOs. Now get this, ask yourself this, if the state is all about public safety, the why doesn’t designate a person released from prison who robbed at gun point on an internet site a robber? Certainly this person is a threat to society. Or a burgular, or a drug dealer, car jacker, home invader or someone who phyicially assaulted someone. Certainly these types of crimes and the people who commit them are a threat to the peace and dignity of the community. But no, theres not a robber registry, a burgular registry, a… well, you get the point. And these are the crimes with the highest recidivist rates. Doesn’t anybody find that odd?

    • Scott Roberson
      November 30, 2015 at 3:53 pm

      Charles it may be odd yes, but again you looking at what is right in front of you rather than what the registry was built upon in the first place.

    • Paul
      November 30, 2015 at 4:38 pm

      You know Charles, what you just wrote made me think of the penitent thief. Even St. Dismas was made a saint and we’re talking about a thief and a murderer. Murderers have a chapel in prison, SO’s can’t even attend church on the outside. I’m not a religious mad at all, but I wonder if the government would show us that same mercy, someday. Point well taken, Charles. That designation, which was built on hysterics and fear, makes it hard for us to overcome the sentiment and hysterics the general public feels towards us. Maybe not impossible, but near damn close to it.

      • Paul
        November 30, 2015 at 4:39 pm

        Religious man……maybe that was a Freudian slip on my part. :O)

  18. Paul
    November 30, 2015 at 2:14 pm

    I hate to crash the party and sound like a curmudgeon but comment posting is all about emotion and hysterics when it comes to news stories. Facts don’t matter to these people. Any fact based statement made by any of us is easily drowned and silenced out by the 500 hysterical comments that precede or follow. And when I read some of these comments, they chill me to the bone. It never ceases to amaze me how much people hate us, want us dead, etc.

    So yes, the facts are on our side and we need to disseminate them but my question is, how do we get past the hysteria to where there can actually be a debate on the facts?

    • Scott Roberson
      November 30, 2015 at 3:50 pm

      Make no mistake. I do read all of the comments left on my articles, some I reply to while others I do not. The may main way that everyone will be able to get past the hysteria and able to debate the facts of the situation si to forwards this article to anyone you can think of. all lawyers, politicians, senators and even law enforcement agencies if you choose. If you bring it the public they may bite.

      • Paul
        November 30, 2015 at 4:02 pm

        I actually wasn’t talking about your articles, Scott. And that’s not to diminish them. This last one you wrote in particular was excellent! What I’m talking about are the garden variety articles you find in the press. You cannot get a word in edgewise in bringing out a different viewpoint in the comments section.

        I will share your statistics with others. They concur with the stats I had been given about a year ago with regards to recidivism rates in the various states.

        • Scott Roberson
          November 30, 2015 at 4:14 pm

          Well thank you for sharing it with others.

  19. Kayt
    November 30, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    @Steven Yoon,
    When it comes to the registry and the damage that it has done to countless lives, I am as serious as anyone could ever be, there is never a way that I could light-heartedly talk about it. I am a victim of collateral damage and have been fighting quite literally to not let “them” win, those people who would see my family destroyed.

    “Tell me like I was three” is a challenge to really think about what might win, and lay it out carefully the way that we would tell a small child. Be very careful about the way we think and work together to form a plan. We need to find the way to a better world.

    I could say a lot more but I just want you to understand that I am very serious.

Comments are closed.