If you are involved in risk assessments in any way (and what psychology-law professional is not, given the current cultural landscape?), now is the time to get up to speed on a major challenge that’s fast gaining recognition.
At issue is whether the margins of error around scores are so wide as to prevent reliable prediction of an individual’s risk, even as risk instruments show some (albeit weak) predictive accuracy on a group level. If the problem is unsolvable, as critics maintain, then actuarial tools such as the Static-99 and VRAG should be barred from court, where they can literally make the difference between life and death. Full Article
Last night, my wife decided to look at my listing on the Megan’s Law website and saw that they now have a “risk assessment” on me of Low-Moderate and the number at 3. It also stated I took the Static-99 in 2010. I was on parole at that time, and I never once took that assessment in custody nor on parole. I did take it in 2007 as part of an evaluation while preparing for my case, as I also took another that had me in the lowest 6 percent of risk(meaning 94% of the general population more likely to commit a sex crime than I am). Janice, what should I do, if anything?
I am puzzling over the reasoning of risk levels.. if your low or not a risk why even bother display the info for the world? oh no risk score on me even though for 6 years of probation I went to treatment 10 years ago.. must be a major paperwork backlog
Even more puzzling is the fact how the DOJ can spend the time and resources modifying the web site and putting Risk Assessments on it but still has not, with the exception of a very few profiles, added the conviction and release dates and subsequent criminal history, as required by law.
It says “shall” – and not “whenever they get to it”. The language could not be stronger or more concise.
This omission is a clear violation of PC 290, which requires this information be added by the middle of 2010. Anyone here violated PC 290, and paid dearly? Then why does the State of California get to continue, for years, to violate the very Section without any consequences??? Riddle me that!
California Penal Code Section 290.46
(a) (2) (A) On or before July 1, 2010, the Department of Justice shall
make available to the public, via an Internet Web site as specified
in this section, as to any person described in subdivision (b), (c),
or (d), the following information:
(i) The year of conviction of his or her most recent offense
requiring registration pursuant to Section 290.
(ii) The year he or she was released from incarceration for that
offense.
(iii) Whether he or she was subsequently incarcerated for any
other felony, if that fact is reported to the department. If the
department has no information about a subsequent incarceration for
any felony, that fact shall be noted on the Internet Web site.
@Joe … And yet another injustice. People are not listening … I swear it will start within our own village of people we share with … Just like the commercial from years ago … You tell one person and ill tell one person and so on and so on … It may not directly affect those you tell, but mark my words it will reach someone they know maybe two or three people away … I’ve seen it happen. Just keep sharing, educating … For those who don’t think it will ever affect them!
The doj is the guardian of the political future of any incumbent AG as seen when M’s law website was launched. Whenever you would ask them a reasonable question, they would put it through a filter and come up with some inane reason that there were always right. They made certain all 290’s were retroactively punished, regardless of the apparent harm that was do be done to the ex-offenders’ families – especially on decades old cases in which the registrant had completed, in many cases, long term rehabilitation programs, were cleared to start new families etc. Any legislation would be welcomed that would isolate erroneous or exaggerated verbiage and preambles and somehow find a way to prevent them from fear mongering especially in light of the new statistics. Right to free speech is one thing but when a state agency tells lies, then acts on them is something entirely different. Where is the accountability of public servants when it comes to these “convenient truths?”
In my case, they should put the year the offense occured. I’m 28 now, so if they listed the offense date as 1998 then it wouldn’t take an imbecile to figure out that it happened 15 years ago (making me 13 years old.) Instead, it shows a conviction date in 2005, making me 20 years old. Really hard to explain to people…
@mh… I don’t think I’m wrong in sharing this (and if my post never appears … Then I guess I will know I have spoken out of line) But, I know that you can go and have a Live Scan done, wait for the results to be sent to you and then forward those results to the CA RSOL. They will submit a letter on your behalf that will be sent to the DOJ to have the actual year of your conviction listed. But, it must state that in the info you get from the DOJ. Ice seen it happen.
Slowly that risk number is being added… but they tap on Incomplete to majority “An offender with an incomplete score may be at higher risk to reoffend than the incomplete score indicates”
So you can imagine how it is for someone like me, attacked in custody by other inmates, one of whom tried to kill me(for my Christian faith I might add, not my case), bullied into accepting a plea on FIVE felonies which only had me in custody for a total of only 14 months (now how dangerous does that make me sound now?) and lifetime registration, no real victim, courts refusing any appeal, no contact with my own child for the 3 years of parole in which I was forced to live homeless in a county which wasn’t even my last known residence (which I completed last year without added time for violations), and still unable to live with my wife and daughter because of when my conviction was and where they live. After all this, the least they could do is have accurate information.
By the way, if having to register isn’t to be considered punitive, then why do they include that in sentencing when a person is convicted?