ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (4/17 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings
ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18, 2021

CaliforniaGeneral News

CDCR – 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report

CA STATE REPORT INCLUDES 1.9 PERCENT RECIDIVISM RATE

According to a newly released report of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the recidivism rate for those convicted of a sex-related offense (“sex offender”) is 1.9 percent. That is, those labeled by CDCR as “sex offenders” have a conviction rate of only 1.9 percent for a “new” sex crime.

“The information in this CDCR report demonstrates that those convicted of sex-related offenses are unlikely to repeat their behavior,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of California Reform Sex Offender Laws. “Therefore, laws passed by counties and cities that prohibit the use of public recreational areas by registrants are misguided in that they do not increase public safety but instead violate the state and federal constitutions by denying the civil rights of registrants.”

According to the CDCR Secretary, this report is the third in a series of annual reports on the outcomes of inmates released from CDCR correctional institutions. The report notes that recidivism rates for all offenses have declined for the second straight year. The Secretary added that CDCR hopes the information in the report “will provide new insights to policy-makers….that will be useful in moving the state forward with regard to efforts that increase public safety.

“It is essential that policy-makers and the public be educated regarding this report which reflects the actual, low recidivism rate of registrants,” stated Bellucci. “For too long, policy-makers and the public have based important decisions on misinformation and fear.”

The CDCR report also states that 86.9 percent of offenses committed by registrants are based upon parole violations. Parole conditions required of registrants are often unreasonable and unrelated to either the original offense or the likelihood to commit a subsequent offense.

A copy of the report can be found online. Information regarding the recidivism rates for registrants can be found on page 30.

CDCR – 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report

 

 

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 will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.  
 
16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thank you, CDCR, for shining the light! Elected officials can no longer hide in the darkness, claiming that once an offender, always an offender. We need to share this information with anyone and everyone who will listen.

This report is very encouraging, and I will use this statistic someday when my own city council tries to impose further restrictions on RSO’s. For comparison purposes, what are the actual recidivism rates for drug dealers, gangbangers, thieves, kidnappers, etc?

If you download the PDF file that accompanies the article it has statistics for all of that. I believe from what I read the rate of repeating other crimes is about a 60% chance but I may be wrong.

The relevant 1.9% statistic is on page 30, section 4.5.5. However, if this report is used in a legal filing, the abundance of other sex crime statistics may cloud that positive aspect.

I’m sorry if I’m splitting hairs here, But if the number given is 1.9% based on the number returned to prison(5870); Then based on the total number released (8490), the percentage should be around 1.3% of those released during the time frame was for a new sex offense. pg. 30 table 11

Now that we have new information that shows the problem is much less than previously believed, my concern is that those who have been peddling fear will turn around and say, “See? Our crackdown efforts are paying off.”

Huh, the DA of Orange County stated it was much more than 1.9%? This can’t be incorrect? I thought that whatever he stated MUST BE TRUE? THE CDCR must be incorrect? I find this report very disturbing. FIrst, cities throughout the country have been stating the opposite. We have city after city enticing the community with false reports and enacting new law after new law?

I have always lamented that, across the country, lawyers arguing our side of the case have not heavily invested part of their case in the stunningly low recidivism rate. Most of the anti arguments are based upon this “high recidivism rate” statistic that would seem prevalent based upon media and politicians, except for the facts. Indeed, in any criminal case involving the right to object, a lawyer defending a client must immediately and forcefully interject himself with a strong objection once the state brings out any semblance or reiteration of the “high recidivism rate,” and in any civil case argued… Read more »

Eric, the statistics have been used to argue the point but the problem is that proponents of these draconian measures cherry-pick their own statistics – taken out of context – to argue their case. For example (not the actual numbers but fairly representative for the sake of making my point) they will say a felon convicted for a sex offense is 70% more likely to be re-arrested for a new sex offense than a felon not convicted of a sex offense. Lawmakers and the public hear that 70% and say “dear god, this is rampant!” But if you digest that… Read more »

This report uses “recidivism” to refer to all returns to custody, so at first it looks like sex offenders on parole have a very high recidivism rate of 69.1%. It is only when looking closely that one sees that 86.9% of those returns were for parole violations, while only 1.9% were for new sex offenses. Note that this is 1.9% of the 69.1% who were returned to custody. Hence it represents 0.019(69.1%) = 1.3% of all sex offenders on parole. While this is good news, it would be easy to argue that sex offenders on parole are heavily supervised, including… Read more »

Michael – Your comment here and the points made within is, in total, very close to the reality of the defeats the attorney’s of registered offenders have tallied in federal, state, county and city courts nationwide. Many state attorneys have cited perhaps one of the first Supreme Court rulings regarding probably of our/the only losing argument that truly matters: That lost aregument was this: Are any additional restrictions or requirements manufactured in a different time, promoted by legislatures voted for by a more advanced citizenry conciousness, creating new restrictions and/or requirements now concieved in a vastly improved technology enviornment and… Read more »

I’m going to read this post three or four times..do some homework..and and post a developed response.

At first blush, it would seem that you are coming to grips with the essence, but please understand that we are confronted with mania.

First! We have to calm those inflamed by the tortured prosecutors.

Bill –

I look forward to your comments. You are right.

Jay

Jay: The rationale for maintaining the sex offender registries rests in the mistaken belief that sex offenders are so deeply character-flawed at no amount of psychiatry or behavior modification can cure the perpetrator. So the continued reporting requirement and associated limitations on the relative freedoms of the individual are described not as additional punishment after-the-fact, but necessary administrative controls levied against otherwise obdurate miscreants. The difficulty lies in the public’s acceptance of the term “punishment”. I think it is fair to define “punishment as a term used in operant conditioning to refer to any change that occurs after a behavior… Read more »

Bill, I could not agree with you more. We are obligated to fight this injustice for the collective good of the country. Even though we have been demonized we can still fight and demand that the Constitution upon which this once great country was based on is once again honored and respected for all Americans and not just a few.

We can turn this injustice that we deal with daily into a cause for change and help the country as we help ourselves.

LETS MAKE 2013 A BATTLE YEAR AND FIGHT!

Bill – Yes. You are correct. Although, can Supreme Court cases be won or struck down arguing in essence we are approaching Nazi Party like Germany now because one group is persecuted unfairly, like sex offenders? I’m leary of depending on that. It makes non affected citizens think “conspiracy theory” nothing-ness. I see winning the war by first defeating the Alaskan Supreme Court decision and another one out of Connecticut decison that went to the Supreme Court that I just found. They are heavily based on Megan’s Law arguments. The major flaw from the 1990’s is this…Megan’s Law was created…and… Read more »

16
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.