ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459, Time: 5 pm PT

Monthly Meetings

Q3: 9/16 in San Diego [details], Q4: 10/14 in Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group Meeting: Aug 26 in LA [details]

California

CA Sex Offender Management Board Releases Video

The California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) has released a 7-minute video that dispels many myths regarding registrants and replaces those myths with facts. The video includes on-camera statements from CASOMB members including representatives of the California Department of Justice, the Los Angeles Police Department and treatment providers.

According to the video, not all registrants are the same and the majority of registrants are “very unlikely” to commit a subsequent sex offense. In fact, the rate of re-offense for low-level offenders is less than one percent.
The video also highlights the fact California is only 1 of 4 states that requires all individuals convicted of a sex offense to register for a lifetime. This requirement results in barriers to housing, employment and social relationships but does not increase public safety.

According to the video, treating all registrants the same doesn’t work and is too expensive. The video advocates instead the effective use of government resources including individual assessments of registrants.

The video also includes statements from individuals who have survived a sexual offense. According to one of the survivors, she would prefer that government resources focus upon long-term prevention and healing.

Watch on YouTube

Join the discussion

  1. Curiouser

    An impressive piece of work by the CASOMB. Now, to drive the point home, I am hopeful that the Board will listen to the ACSOL and comes off its “written in stone” stance and produce a new tiered registry proposal which reflects all that it states in this video.

    • Andrew

      The video is short and concise and presents the facts quite well. I sincerely hope that it will have some impact. I remain confused about the 4 sates with lifetime registration versus California. For example I understand that a person can get off the registry after 5 years if they move to Texas. But if you have been out of jail and off parole longer than that already in California, does your five years start over again in Texas? Further I am listed as low to moderate risk, but when I look up the static 99 test and put in the correct information I am low risk with a minus one score. I don’t recall anyone ever giving me that test, only an interview when I was released and those questions were never asked of me. So how do they come up with that score and how do I get it corrected. Attorneys are expensive and I’m not getting any younger.

      • ML

        TX follows the Fed tiers about how long that you have to wait before you can apply to de-register. However, that opportunity has been available since 2011, and the last report is that only 58 have been allowed to get off of the registry. We have 80,000 RC’s in TX. The judges summarily do not allow. While judges are supposed to be impartial, the truth is that they must be seen as tough on crime or risk losing an election.

      • Haight

        “Presents the fact quite well?” “Impressive piece of work?”

        How is misrepresenting high risk sex offender (HRSO) statistics that rely on the Static 99 scam presenting the facts “quite well?” Also, there is nothing “impressive” of this work. Just a video that any layman could have concocted on Apple Movie Maker.

        All they had extra were politically-motivated “experts,” a voice over from the same woman who did the Jay Leno photo booth skits, and cue-cards/scripts for those on the video to read.

        CASOMB tells you one thing on the video. Yet the draft bill that they are pushing through Sacramento says something totally different.

        One would not be so naïve to believe CASOMB after all the double-speak and bogus “science” they’ve used to screw registrants over?

    • Government Propaganda?

      Am I the only one to find this video eerily Orwellian?

      1. Everyone seems to be reading from a script. Especially the detective (who seems to be struggling with reading from what might be a teleprompter).

      2. They seem to be preparing us to villainize “high risk” sex offenders next.

      3. Even though the Static-99R will be used, the video doesn’t mention the Static 99 at all.

      4. The video seems really watered down. While the draft legislation itself is a lot more complicated and convoluted, this video feels like it was made in a high school video editing class.

      5. No mention of how people must “petition” to get off.

      6. No mention of how the tiered registry is not entirely “risk” based. Depending on offense, you can end up at Tier I, II, or III.

      7. No mention of how there is no evidence supporting efficacy of registration policies to begin with. So what’s the point of having a registry to begin with?

      8. No mention of how this tiered legislation will be funded. (Adam Walsh status, here we come!)

      9. No mention of how the Static 99R “risk assessment” lumps both violent and non-contact crimes together.

      10. If mostly everyone on the video are claiming each sex offender is “different,” why are they using the Static 99R — which lumps all type of offenders in its sample — to determine “risk?”

      Viewing this video had me feeling like I was watching something created by the North Korean Public Information Office.

      • Mike

        I also feel this video is dishonest. While the video makes a tiered registry *seem* straightforward, the bill’s actual verbiage reflects more complex legislation than what is portrayed in the video. For example, Nancy O’Malley, Tom Tobin and the detective boasts of a “risk” based registry in which each offender should be treated “differently.” They make it SEEM straightforward that Tiers I, II and III are for 10, 20 and lifetime, respectively. Yet O’Malley & Tobin don’t mention that in the BILL’S WORDING, district attorney offices reserve the right to object to each ‘petiton.’ O’Malley doesn’t mention how her DA office, as well as other DA offices, will probably object to many — if not all — ‘petition’ attempts. And that the decision to get off the registry is at the ultimate discretion of an elected judge. O’Malley & Tobin also don’t mention that the tiered registry is still very much offense-based. It is not simply ‘risk’ based as O’Malley, Tobin and the LAPD detective falsely say.

      • Mike

        Then to add to the mountain of lies and omissions of this video, the added “risk” component will be based off the ridiculously flawed STATIC-99R. No one in the video even utters the word “STATIC-99,” which is quite dishonest (considering the fact that the “risk assessment” O’Malley & Tobin speak so highly of will be based entirely off the STATIC-99R). If anything, I think this video shows just how NOT straightforward CASOMB, SARATSO and O’Malley/Tobin are. The video makes the tiered registry seem straightforward when an actual read of the bill shows that it’s not! I don’t buy into the kool aid. And I think this video is very misleading.

      • Janice Bellucci

        The purpose of the video is not to explain the tiered registry bill. Instead the purpose of the video is to educate the public including elected officials about the facts of the registry.

        • Mixer

          It seems like no matter how many small battles are won someone is always gonna gribe. Way to go Janet!!

        • jo

          And an amazing video it is! I am still shocked that they produced this. Bravo!

        • David Kennerly, "Still Radioactive After All These Years"

          I take it you are now on South African time.

        • Terry

          Gotta say that this video is quite disingenuous.

          I’m going to have to err on the side of the critics on this one. If I’ve learned anything about sex offender laws, it’s usually a good idea not to drink the Kool Aid — especially when it’s served by the government.

          For one, this YouTube video is pure dishonesty. All the video is doing is setting up the politicians and public to ostracize “high-risk” sex offenders. Specifically, CASOMB is making a new label that will place high-risk individuals on nearly identical level as SVPs. Might sound fair enough — at least in theory.

          EXCEPT the dishonest CASOMB representatives don’t even mention that the high-risk label will be based entirely on the STATIC 99 SCAM. It’s a telling omission that should raise eyebrows. At the same time, should we not also be troubled that maybe some politicans just *might* vote on the tiered registry based on watching this ridiculous video alone — WITHOUT even reading the complicated bill? Kind of like a voter making a decision on propositions and politicians based on only campaign ads? Or perhaps equally troubling, a voter who solely votes based on what organizations or politicans support a particular proposition or politician? Considering the magnitude of a politican’s input into proposed legislation, we should expect them to actually read a bill’s text — not make decisions based on a shallow video. This video is CASOMB’s manipulation at work (which they seem to be very good at, considering that they’ve convinced seemingly everyone in our government that the lie detector is science — when it clearly is not).

          Even if just ONE politician makes a vote based on his or her first impression of the video (without reading the actual law), then this video really is a detriment to the truth that we should seek as integrated into our laws.

          Neither mentioned is the fact that at least 2 obscene phone calls, or any other sex crime that happened twice (no matter if non-violent or if the convictions happened 20+ years ago and he or she hasn’t had any arrests since), is enough to land someone into the highest lifetime tier — TIER III.

          Like someone mentioned, the CASOMB representatives didn’t even say the words “STATIC 99” when mentioning how high risk offenders would be labeled. You’d think the name of the STATIC 99 would be important enough to had been included, considering CASOMB wants to label people for LIFE using what seems to be 10 superficial questions that the STATIC SCAM relies on.

          Obviously, we who have donated our hard-earned money and have attended the meetings have a right to be concerned about ACSOL’s board members getting drunk off of spiked Kool Aid. They are supposed to represent all of us. They should not even consider any law that is at the expense of the rights of others — even if under the guise of “incrementalism.”

          Because all the logic seems to be pointing at the fact that CASOMB’s tier proposal is an absolute setup into even MORE draconian laws.

          I don’t think I am alone with this worry that his organization isn’t being vigilant in protecting the rights of ALL registrants. So yes, this video is really troubling on many, many levels.

  2. steve

    I don’t understand:

    “The video advocates instead the effective use of government resources including individual assessments of registrants.”

    Isn’t this contradictory to their tiered proposal? Or are the individual asessments the DA looking at your paperwork?

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      Yep…it’s doublespeak. Smoke and mirrors. Word trickery meant to ensnare the registrant. Look at the rabbit in my left hand and ohhhh what’s that?…a ball-peen hammer in my right.

      BIP!@# (lights out)

    • Timmr

      I was assessed before my conviction, psychological reports, victim input, probation reports, progress in therapy. Why would some DA need to do it again years later, if I have not reoffended.

      • New Person

        Isn’t that like being tried for the same crime???

        And isn’t that illegal? You know, like registration?

        • Timmr

          Yeah, it’s like saying they got the sentence wrong the first time, although they don’t have any information to back that up. It is clear to me that is what the Constitution was meant to protect against. Even the alagorical figures on reoffense by group somehow applying to you or me as part of that group say little chance of reoffense. Indeed, almost everyone in the general public has a chance of committing a sex offense. Why not then develop a test to judge risk in the general population and post results on tbe internet? If it is purely regulation, not retribution, and they think public monitoring is the solution to save the most vulnerable, then why not?

          • New Person

            someone posted an article about just that! Except it wasn’t a test, but rather a record of histories – often called facts.

            the risk of s*x offense by the public is equal to that of re-offense by a registrant.

            It’s in the article called “Another Eye Popping Statistic” on ACSOL.

  3. wonderin

    Apparently, they are trying to prepare the general public for the new tiered registry and reduce the amount of resistance.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      Look at their actions…not their words.

      • Bruce Ferrell

        Please be specific

        • abolishtheregistry.com

          They say they support reasonable approaches but in this latest bill they’ve supported something that goes backwards in my opinion.

          On top of that, from the studies, they should support no registry based on recidivism yet they don’t.

          They also support the 99r scam with no published methodology from what I’ve seen.

          Its obvious, by their actions, they’re registrant bad, registry good.

          They’ll always err against us.

  4. DPH

    W O W, …this might actually help us help EDUCATE the Public and their Fear Mongers and haters.
    Reduce Ignorance equals less harm towards RC’s. Hope they make the new Cap Hill Legislators/Senators review.
    We will have to wait and see. Step in the right direction CASOMB.
    Let’s start with Senator LEYVA down south and have her listen to the LAPD Det.

  5. Mike

    They should add a different “assessment” than the Static 99R when classifying Tier III. Or at least add an additional dynamic (not static) test to make the categorization into Tier III when using only the Static 99 as classifying someone “high risk.”

  6. David Kennerly, "Still Radioactive After All These Years"

    It’s great to look at how much Tom Tobin has aged since I had the misfortune of knowing him some twenty-three years ago. A bit of schadenfreude. Of course, I haven’t age a bit 🙂

    • Mike

      You’d think that with all of Tom Tobin’s ethically suspect Sharper Future “treatment” contracts, he’d be able to buy some type of magical anti-aging cream. By the way, no one has mentioned that this tiered bill proposal gives credibility to ONLY “CASOMB-certified” ‘treatment’ programs. Guess which one happens to be the state’s biggest. Special interests and corruption are unchecked!

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0, "SARATSO rhymes with Tabasco but isn't as delicious"

        I’m going to take a guess and say “Sharper Future.” If so, we can see that Tobin has already influenced the proposed tier bill by giving his company an unfair competitive advantage. What can we expect when Tobin is vice chair of CASOMB, as well as CEO of Sharper Future. As others have said on this website many times before, it’s a clear conflict-of-interest.

      • abolishtheregistry.com

        Bingo.

  7. jo

    Very pleased to see MOVEMENT in our direction on so many fronts.

  8. www.SexOffenderIssues.com (coming soon)

    Remember this video and it’s source when you come across those who continue to push the “more than 50%” re-offense rates. I suggest publishing the link to the video and say nothing more.

  9. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    There are some good parts to this video. But there are also some misleading and disingenuous parts to this video.

    Listen to the words very carefully in the following excerpt: https://youtu.be/GBoy2FB27yg?t=135

    “High risk offenders have approximately a 29 percent chance of committing a new offense within FIVE-YEARS from release of incarceration.” – Lauren Rauch

    Firstly, exactly where did the detective, Lauren Rauch, get a 29 percent figure? Even using CASOMB’s very own study written by Hanson (who, as one of the “developers” of the Static, boasts of the Static-99R’s efficacy in this and many other “studies”), a simple division of the ‘high-risk’ figure on page 12 [29 divided by 143] generates a recidivism rate of about 20.3 percent within a FIVE-YEAR period of release of incarceration. Here is the copy of said conflict-of-interest “study”:

    http://all4consolaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Recidivism-Report-June-2016.pdf

    So the detective in the video inflates the figure for the “high-risk” offenders by about nine percent.

    Furthermore, the definition of “recidivism” is not limited to sex or sexually-motivated crimes. As page 7 states: “Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated.”

    So the very definition of ‘recidivism’ is exaggerated. And the video omits the very important fact that even so-called “high-risk sex offenders” are no more likely to reoffend than anyone else if they had remained offense-free in the community for at least 17 years. The video also has no mention of the “Static-99R.” I have to wonder: did CASOMB and SARATSO leave mention of the Static test out because they knew that its use is very controversial?

    For example, Virginia’s legislature has already done an extensive audit/study on the Static-99R. According to Virginia’s audit:

    “While actuarial risk assessments have value, they can substantially over- or underestimate the potential that a given individual may reoffend if released, and are not intended to precisely predict an individual’s actual risk of future reoffense. Virginia is the only state that designates a specific actuarial risk assessment instrument and score in statute. This citation of a specific instrument and score in statute results in two substantial flaws. The first is that the threshold score of ‘5’ in statute limits the ability of qualified individuals to use their professional judgment to decide which offenders should be further evaluated, including some offenders who are likely sexually violent predators.” See iii. Here is a copy of the audit:

    http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf

    Furthermore, highly-esteemed professors from Duke, USC, and UW similarly disagree to the Static. The four professors — including Dr. Allen Frances, MD, the Chair of the DSM (also known as the “Bible of Psychiatry”) — call the Static-99R’s scoring ‘dubious’ (p. 404) and reliant on ‘unpublished’ (p. 402) documentation:

    http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf

    Here is another good blog article about how the Static-99R has been misused in states like Florida:

    http://restoringintegritytovirginiaregistry.blogspot.com/2013/10/overestimating-sex-offender-static-99r.html

    I hope California does not make the same mistake. I have personally seen the harm the Static-99R has done in the “treatment” setting. And it does NO good to extent its use to determining Tier 3 offenders in a tiered registry bill.

    • pgm111

      Tobin’s Tools 2.0… The increase from 20.3% to 29.0% is 42.8% (not 9%). In other words, Lauren Rauch inflated the risk of re-offense for the high-risk group by 42.8%.

    • DPH

      Excellent points Tobin’s Tools 3.0! With back up too,
      Spoke like a true scholar AND I viewed it three times within the first 6 min. it was out. I will review it again.
      Thank you for your detail Sir. Or Madame.

    • surprised

      Why does the bogus casomb study you cite only use a sample of 143 so called “high risk” offenders? I remember reading somewhere that the static 99 labels somewhere between 8,000 to 10,000 offenders as “high risk” RSOs. Did the state only pick and choose certain cases to use as part of the 143?

  10. Joe123

    The question is: How can we get this video in front of Senators/Representatives, Lobbyists, Judges, etc. ?

    Any person can agree that this video makes sense, but we need this to be seen by the right people for it to start making a difference.

    Is this even something that can be used to argue against the IML law?

    • DVD package works well

      Put onto DVDs and send to them with highlights in a bullet paper for their reading works well for staffers who do their work until the elected official wants to review it, if at all.

    • Harry

      Joe123 wrote, “… but we need this to be seen by the right people for it to start making a difference.” This video needs to be seen all people, especially the ones that do not like us. Most of them have been rolling on the wrong wheels of perception and this video will put a chock block in their way.

  11. Roger

    It took decades for a video like this to be published. I’m glad that perceptions are changing!

    • DPH

      Great Point Rog, people here are some new and have not been waiting like some of us (30+ yrs) for them to make this ML Site work properly AND look what Janice and Team are getting accomplished, my Spouse checked at work and he noted that YES the year was added to the site as well as a different display type.
      Again Roger, I agree… it’s a StARt to moving forward when their was nothing but the board and the ML Site and the CDC and DOJ with not much and not much FACTS, Tobin’s Tools had some valid points that need to be reworked like the Tier III does and not let the DA just take the reins when and where for releasement.

  12. Harry

    This is a important tool that is to our benefit and it can be used to tear down a bunch of trash and it can be used against CASOMB own purposed tier registry legislation and the IML. This video needs to be sent to ALL law making bodies in California and the nation. The chicken (truth) is coming to roost.

  13. KM

    I have a Static Score of 1 whis is virtually the same score 100% of anyone my age would get on that damn things…..how am I of average risk if the dude who did the test would get the same result I did?

    • HOOKSCAR

      I never took a static 99 test. Been 17+ years. Um, how are they going to risk assess me?

    • katt

      Young people (ages 18-34) actually get a 1 point penalty on the Static 99R. Same as non-contact offenders. Non contact offenders also get a 1 point penalty hit. Strangely, violent and/or contact offenders get no penalty points on the Static 99R. It should be the other way around, no?

  14. katt

    After watching this video, I got the impression that the government’s next strategy is to villainize people given the label of “high risk sex offender.” Like user Tobin’s Tools mentioned above, it seems CASOMB/SARATRO are manipulating already questionable Static 99R methodology to create a narrative that people that score “high risk” on the static are somehow more “dangerous” or high risk. Like what Tobin’s Tools said, where did the detective in the video get 29 percent? Note how the figure is ONLY up to a 5-year alleged prediction (and does seem inflated by at least 9%). And as Tobin’s Tools mentions above, CASOMB/SARATSO’s definition of “recidivism” also includes non sex offenses AND probation/parole violations. And what — the Static relies on 10 questions to forecast destiny? So while the video doesn’t outright say it, the tiered bill they want will use 10 dumbed down Static 99R questions to label someone high risk for life. I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I call B.S.

  15. mike r

    Yep this video needs to be shown in every court case that comes before the courts and cited as well…I cant wait to see a real suit come into play and see what happens…It is virtually imposible to determine the registry is justified and fair once the court records have all this empirical evidence laid out in detail…I hate this phrase but Its a no brainer…..

  16. DavidH

    I’m happy they (CASOMB) came out with the video, as now should there ever be a reason to challenge their “doings” we have their conclusions on file–the only thing that could change that is for all convicted SO’s to begin re-offending, which isn’t ever going to be the case unless they put something in the water.

    • abolishtheregistry.com

      ‘Mental Hygiene Law’

      That’s some creepy crap right there. Mental eugenics 101!

      Heil Hitler?

      • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

        “Mental Hygiene Laws” simply invites the inevitable subsequent reaction, “brain washing,” doesn’t it?

        • abolishtheregistry.com

          Yes it does. We are in wiered and historically familiar times.

    • STATIC 99/R scam?

      So… that court decision pretty much rips the phony “doctor” Karl Hanson and his STATIC 99 scam apart. Apparently, according to that court decision, the STATIC 99 does not meet SCOTUS’ Frye standard. Same with the polygraph. Polygraph also doesn’t meet Frye standard. What’s the difference between STATIC 99 and 99R (“R” pretendedly stands for “Revised”)? The 99R pretendedly takes age into score factor. But the big flaw: it’s your “age at release” from incarceration. So your STATIC score never changes. Whether you’re age 25 or 85, your score — just like the Tier III scheme — is lifetime. The 99R does NOT take your CURRENT age into factor. Nor does the 99R even take offense free period into factor. The STATIC tests are big scams that will have everyone going in circles. Just like a dog chasing his own tail. That’s one of the reasons to why the government likes it. Also, the STATIC scam is cheap and easy to administer (while at the same time, conveniently generally over-predicting alleged “risk”).

      • David Kennerly, still radioactive after all these years

        I think that there has not been added to Static-99R an extremely simple modification of reducing the score by elapsed time, crime-free, in the community tells us everything we need to know about the sincerity of its creators, as well as those who employ it, to establish risk and to advance justice.

        That data of the effects of time on re-offense rates is readily available and of greater validity than the State-99/R ever has been.

        I would say that we should have, as a goal, the debunking of Static-99/R in the minds of the courts to be replaced with data of elapsed time in the community or an elapsed-time modification of the Static-99/R score.

        • Tobin's Tools 2.0

          David,

          I agree.

        • Punished For Life

          @David Kennerly,
          As one of those who have been on the list for over 2 1/2 decades now, I concur. Additionally,
          I believe that the need to hire an attorney and beg the Judge and the DA to release a person
          from the punitive registry makes little sense to me. If the registry must remain….Removal should be automatic after the passage of time with an offense free life.
          If a drunk driver ran over a child in a crosswalk 25 years ago, he/she can live completely free to travel the world once time is served. They may live in any community. This person may drive drunk again and again once his time is served. They can drive drunk to join their children while they visit the schools. They may visit any beach, park, library and stop by the liquor store on the way home.
          It’s so very sad how society is so misinformed. It’s not about regulation. It’s about punishment and until that can be acknowledged, the fight will continue. It’s all about the hatred. Society hates drunks temporarily. Then society has a drink later that day.

          David, I absolutely love to read your posts. I find myself being educated with your every post.
          I regularly visit the online dictionary while reading your posts. It’s like a learning experience as you so eloquently phrase each and every sentence. Thank You

      • Timmr

        One thing is sure, science is showing the human mind is not static. It evolves and changes. We might be similar, but we never are what we were before.

        • Evolved from Obtuse

          Timmr – definitely. However, that would take an evolved mind though by others to understand that and who are in the right positions to do something along with the populace as well, who does not seem to want to evolve at all.

          What you say reminds me of what Tim Robbin’s character (Andy Dufresne) says in Shawshank Redemption to the Warden when new evidence comes to light:

          Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?

          Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?

          Andy Dufresne: Obtuse. Is it deliberate?

          Hmm…makes you wonder huh?

          • Timmr

            Unfortunately, evolving doesn’t necessarily mean moving towards a more complex and lucid state. I am afraid I will have a demented man looking at me in the mirror one morning, at I won’t realized that anything has changed.
            Then I can join the 99 percent of the population in happy oblivion.

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        “STATIC 99/R scam” (and others),

        It’s strange that in the case cited, the prosecution objected to the Static-99 because it actually helped the defendant. (Would the state had objected to the Static-99 if it helped the prosecution?)

        Nonetheless, I agree (for the most part) with the comments. The only part I disagree with is the claim that the Static-99R solely “over-predict[s].” Truth is while the Static can over-predict, the Static can also under-predict. The guesstimate scoring system sort of resembles a casino crapshoot. As the Virginia legislature’s Static-99R audit states:

        “While actuarial risk assessments have value, they can substantially over- or underestimate the potential that a given individual may reoffend if released, and are not intended to precisely predict an individual’s actual risk of future reoffense.” See iii. (http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf)

        In California, one example of how the Static-99 failed our state is in its under-prediction (or perhaps more appropriately, failed prediction) of John Gardner’s future recidivism. As some of you know, Gardner’s tragic case motivated the enactment of “Chelsea’s Law” (which, among many of its consequences, include 10-year, 20-year, and lifetime parole terms). Gardner recidivated (two sexually-motivated murders) after scoring a “2” on the Static-99 based off of a contact offense. (Ironically, under the new Static-99R, Gardner would STILL be classified as “2.”)

        A Static-99 — or Static-99R — score of ‘2’ translates to “low to moderate” risk. Read page 7 of the following report to see how the Static-99 under-predicted Gardner’s case: http://www.casomb.org/docs/Gardner%20Report.pdf

        I hate to say it; but maybe there is a necessity for SVP civil commitments. In Gardner’s case, had the Static-99 not existed, perhaps he would have been rightfully committed (and it would have saved many registrants from the unnecessary burdens of Chelsea’s Law). Instead, CDCR decided to rely on Gardner’s Static score.

        Had CDCR listened to the advice of the mental health experts — and not merely the Static-99 scam — MAYBE, just MAYBE, Mr. Gardner would have received appropriate treatment that would have prevented his reoffense.

        A vast majority of us have learned from our past mistakes. The same cannot be said of CASOMB and SARATSO. (They should be setting a good example, no?)

        Based on the Gardner case, CASOMB and SARATSO have failed to learn from their mistakes. In this case, CASOMB and SARATSO seem to have only invested more resources into the Static-99R. It is almost as if CASOMB and SARATSO have “doubled-down” in their Static-99R “risk assessment” strategy.”STATIC 99/R scam,”

        It’s strange that in the case cited, the prosecution objected to the Static-99 because it actually helped the defendant. (Would the state had objected to the Static-99 if it helped the prosecution?)

        Nonetheless, I agree (for the most part) with your comments. The only part I disagree with is your claim that the Static-99R “over-predict[s].” In addition to over-prediction, the Static-99R can also under-predict recidivism as well. As the Virginia legislature Static-99R audit states:

        “While actuarial risk assessments have value, they can substantially over- or underestimate the potential that a given individual may reoffend if released, and are not intended to precisely predict an individual’s actual risk of future reoffense.” See iii. (http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/20d0de7a436ff22c85257863004afe71/$FILE/HD5.pdf)

        In California, one example of how the Static-99 failed our state is in its prediction (or perhaps more appropriately, failed prediction) of John Gardner’s future recidivism. As some of you know, Gardner’s case motivated the enactment of “Chelsea’s Law.” Gardner recidivated (two sexually-motivated murders) after scoring a score of “2” on the Static-99 based off of a contact offense. (Ironically, under the new Static-99R, Gardner would STILL be classified as “2.”)

        A Static-99 — or Static-99R — score of ‘2’ translates to “low to moderate” risk. Read page 7 of the following report to see how the Static-99 under-predicted Gardner’s case: http://www.casomb.org/docs/Gardner%20Report.pdf

        I hate to say it; but maybe there is a necessity for SVP civil commitments. In Gardner’s case, had the Static-99 not existed, perhaps he would have been rightfully committed (and it would have saved many registrants from the unnecessary burdens of Chelsea’s Law). Instead, CDCR decided to rely on Gardner’s Static score.

        Had CDCR listened to the advice of the mental health experts — and not merely the Static-99 scam — MAYBE, just MAYBE, Mr. Gardner would have received appropriate treatment that would have prevented his reoffense.

        A vast majority of us have learned from our past mistakes. The same cannot be said of CASOMB and SARATSO. (They should be setting a good example, no?)

        Based on the Gardner case, CASOMB and SARATSO have failed to learn from their mistakes. In this case, CASOMB and SARATSO seem to have only invested more resources into the Static-99R. It is almost as if CASOMB and SARATSO have “doubled-down” in their Static-99R “risk assessment” strategy.

        As someone really smart said: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” In my opinion, the continued use of the Static-99 (and its “Revised” variant) is truly ‘insane.’

        • surprised

          That’s hard to believe Gardner scored only a 2 on the Static. So if a 2 score translates to “low to moderate” reoffense risk, why did Gardner do what he did? You are right though. If the Static 99 couldn’t predict something so unfortunate as Gardner’s case, why are casomb & saratso still using it?

        • Timmr

          One thing Gardner did do for the state is get longer sentences for child molestation. He turned Nathan Fletcher, CASOMB and the state legislators into heros. Why didn’t he die when others who have done less have? My question is do they really want to catch the dangerous ones, the ones who validate the prisons being full?

  17. not pessimistic (but also not delusional)

    This video is an illusion. See the video vs. what’s in the actual bill. The video portrays things cleanly (aside from the LAPD detective’s misleading 5 yr “high risk” offender statistic). Contrastingly, the draft bill itself is not clean. If the video was made w/ honesty, CASOMB would have been more clear to define what exactly a “high risk” sex offender is (i.e. determined by Static 99/scam and that risk, especially for ‘high risk’ labeled people, declines with offense-free behavior while free in the community). Instead, CASOMB seems so intent to create new enemies: so called ‘high risk sex offenders’. That is why this video is troubling: it helps one group, but it is at the cost of another. Typical government politicizing/fear-mongering to justifiy law oppressing alleged ‘high’ riskers. If politicians are going to be making decisions based off a watered-down video, then we’re in trouble. Also, CASOMB are the same folks who push junk science like the polygraph and Static 99. They are not magically friends!!

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 take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here.
  • 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 to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
 

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

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