ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

General News

OK: Letter to the editor: Sex offender laws too harsh

The claims that sex offenders’ re-offense rates are frightening and high have been solidly disproven. In fact, statistics now show that re-offense rates for this group of offenders, less than 5 percent, is among the lowest of all categories. Full Letter to the Editor

Join the discussion

  1. AlexO

    The article is a bit confusing. The info it provides at the beginning is contradictory to the editors note. Is the information just wrong or poorly presented?

    • Harry

      This Broken Arrow editor are using stuff from the author of the flawed Static99, prior to 2006. Using his stats is like hanging a hat on the wind. The editor inappropriate response was grasping for straws.

      • AlexO

        I’m assuming you mean the editors note portion? As far as I’m aware, all modern statistics that actually focus on sexual recidivism fall between 1%-5%. Modern statistics that show a higher number include any run in with the law as recidivism, which is incorrect data to use as that applies to every single criminal group.

        • Follow the $

          I believe the 13% number is inclusive of failing to register offenses which are considered sexual offenses. The 1-5% is more accurate as it takes out regulatory violations. But regardless, 5% or 13% is still 1/8 to 1/3 the rate of all other recidivism. The editor must have felt obliged to add this note so his paper didn’t appear supportive of registered citizens.

          • AlexO

            Then the information should be better explained. You can’t through out two contradictory numbers and leave it like that without explanation when one is three times larger than the other. Not questioning the data behind the numbers is what lead us here in the first place. Whenever I see a large number like that, I always question what’s behind it as it pretty much always seems like they’re included data that’s not actually sexual recidivism.

          • David

            Thanks, Follow $, I knew that 13% rate was too high.
            (Too bad the editors don’t clarify that.😡)

  2. G4Change

    The editor (who wrote the note following this awesome op-ed) must be related to the “frightening and high” SCOTUS justice. Pulling more bullcrap statistics out of his a**. What a crock of crap!!!

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. 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 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 *