ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings [details]
11/17- Phone
, 12/08 – San Diego

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

California

Rate of Re-Offense Drops Again

According to a new report from the CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the rate of re-offense for registrants on parole declined again in 2015. This is the third consecutive reduction in the rate of re-offense reported by the CDCR.

The new CDCR report states that the rate of re-offense for registrants on parole was .6 percent in 2015. That rate compares to CDCR reported rates of .8 percent in 2014, 1.8 percent in 2013 and 1.9 percent in 2012.

“The CDCR reports debunk the myth that registrants have a high rate of re-offense,” stated ACSOL President Janice Bellucci. “The fact is that very few registrants commit a subsequent sex offense.”

By comparison, many state and federal government agencies have reported that more than 90 percent of individuals who commit sex offenses are not registrants, but instead are family members, teachers, coaches and clergy.

According to the new CDCR report, more than half of registrants on parole return to custody during the three-year period after their initial release. The biggest reason for their return to custody is not the commission of a sex offense, but instead is violation of a condition of parole. Conditions of parole include consumption of alcohol, possession of a toy and curfew violations.

CDCR 2015 Outcome Evaluation Report – Aug 2016   (p. 30-31)

 

Join the discussion

  1. Fedup

    Nice

  2. Ny anonymous

    Doesn’t matter. Slam them with vague & ambiguous, ,non-crime related rules & restriction, make them pay for polygraph after polygraph after polygraph and then make them pay and pay and pay for weekly treatment and finally, violate their conditions of release. In some cases, because they can’t pay!!! And “somebody” is getting rich on the backs of registered sex offenders. Others feed off their unchecked power on the backs of registered sex offenders. All this for .8% Why don’t they put all convicts through this? Seriously, I’m asking. . .

  3. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    And of course the Static-99R, with its myriad of disingenuous qualifications and inaccurate norms, will obfuscate the recidivism statistics in this report.

    • Anonymous Nobody

      Yes. Again, that review should NOT be used for any tier proposal we support. Set the tiers by offense, make that automatic, and allow the registrant to apply for a review to lower their tier if they want to. Having everyone subject to a review to set their tier will only get many into higher tiers than they otherwise might get, and it will only build a huge bureacracy to do the reviews, a bureacracy that will be our worst enemy in fighting registration as their jobs will depend on it.

  4. Steve

    More ammunition to fight the “frightening and high” garbage.

    • JohnDoeUtah

      I hear ya, but I’m disgruntled this week. Some new moderator at my local new agency keeps rejecting any post where I cite proof of low recidivism rates, study names, authors, or even the new Does #1-5 v. Synder decision from the 6th Circuit. He/she will let me post other stupid comments, but anytime I try to back up my statements it gets rejected.

  5. Anonymous Nobody

    I worry about this so limited report they issue. And only for those on parole.

    What they will argue is that this proves registration is working, and if anything, we need more of it. We need numbers from 25years ago, 20 years ago — to compare to show registration has accomplished nothing. Otherwise we lose this argument.

    I will note, I had a federal Justice Department report from the late 1990s that had the sex offender recidivism rate at about 2,5 or 3% – that or other numbers from prior to the push for registration since the Clinton administration made it a federal mandate would be critical to compare in order to show how pointless registration is. We need to show the recidivism rate never was at significant levels, not that it isn’t at a signficant level with draconian registration requirements.

    • Timmr

      That’s what I was thinking. They will point to all the parolees they sent back to prison and say look, we stopped them from commiting a new offense. Yeah us! Our system is brilliant. It’s so bright and well planned it looks dim witted and arbitrary to those who can’t comprehend advanced correction techniques. Send them back for having a beer. Who knows what terrible things they will do next, if we didn’t nip it in the Bud. All kidding aside, the test for whether the registry works would be a different study made post parole or probation. I’ll have to look at the full report, better pour a cold one first. Do they do this pie chart for other offenses? I’d like to see how many batterers or drunk drivers re-offend. Maybe I can paste them on the wall and throw darts at them (are we allowed to have darts?) and see which offender’s type re-offense slice is harder to hit.

      • Joe

        The recidivism numbers that I have seen in the past for “general” felons has been as high as 40%. The commonly stated FBI numbers for sex offenders who have received treatment is what? 3-4%? My anecdotal experience form 5 years in treatment is that most of the “reoffenses” that I saw were probation or parole violations or some other type of crime. The two sexual reoffenses oddly enough lined up with what the Static 99 would have predicted. Both were men under 25 who had a taste for adolescent boys.

  6. Joe

    Wait. Are you saying that the “recidivism” rate for registrants on parole was .6% for ALL offenses/ violations, not just sexual ones? That is amazing since a lot of parolees live with their PO, the police and the busybodies of the general public looking up their backside with a microscope 24/7!

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *