ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule

ACSOLAction Items

California RSOL Leads Successful Protest in Carson

California RSOL led a successful protest in Carson, which included a diverse group of about 50 registered citizens, family members and supporters.  It is believed to be the first protest of registered citizens in the nation.

“We broke new ground in Carson on March 7, 2015, the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s march from Selma, Alabama,” stated CA RSOL president Janice Bellucci.  “The core issue in both protests was the violation of civil rights.”

The Carson protest focused upon a city law that prohibits registered citizens from loitering in or within 300 feet of public places such as libraries, parks and swimming pools as well as private places such as restaurants that have children’s playgrounds.  The City of Carson agreed to revise its ordinance in a settlement agreement reached on July 25, 2014, but the City Council later refused to honor the agreement.  The City Council recently considered revision of the ordinance during its meeting on March 4, 2015, but decided instead to indefinitely postpone any changes to that ordinance.

“The City of Carson is an outlier and an outlaw,” stated CA RSOL vice president Chance Oberstein.  “The City Council is aware that there are court decisions determining that similar ordinances are preempted by state law and has willfully chosen to disobey them.”

The protest began at Carson City Hall where protesters selected signs to carry and short speeches were made by CA RSOL president Bellucci, CA RSOL treasurer Frank Lindsay and National Lawyers Guild attorney John Viola.  Carrying signs and banners that proclaimed “Carson Violates the Constitution” and “Carson Breaks Promises”, the protesters started a one-mile march down Avalon Boulevard toward Calas Park.  During the march, the drivers of several automobiles honked their horns in support.  Despite a front page article in the local newspaper stating, “Sex Offenders to Protest Today”, no one showed up to voice disagreement with the protest.

The protesters safely arrived at a spot 300 feet from the park where registered citizens stopped and their family members continued to the park.  Refreshments were served in the park to family members and to registered citizens at a site 300 feet from the park.  Refreshments for registered citizens were delivered in a small, red wagon pulled by the 7-year-old daughter and wife of a registered citizen who carried a sign, “I love a registered citizen”.

In a surprising and humane moment, a member of the L.A. Sheriff’s Department stated that registered citizens could move from their site on a hot sidewalk with no shade to a shaded, grassy site across the street from the park.  From the new location, registered citizens could view their family members at the park but could not join them without fear of arrest.

“I miss having picnics in the park with my family,” stated one registered citizen.  “We used to have picnics together almost every week.”

During the picnic, at least six patrol cars were parked near the park, however, no one was arrested.  As the picnic came to a close, one sheriff’s deputy noted that the picnic site was cleaner after the picnic than it was before the picnic.

Note: if you do not wish to be shown in one of these photos please let us know via the Contact Us page and we will remove your likeness asap.

Related: Janice’s Journal: The March on Carson

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The only coverage in the Sunday Los Angeles Times was buried in the B section, on B6 (left hand page), at the bottom. It was only a pic with a short caption, not a story. A good size pic, but I am disappointed that they did not choose one showing the overall participating but instead chose one that made it looks like just a handful of people is all there was, and just standing around looking bored. A line of 50 people marching with signs would have made a much more impressive and fuller report. But then, the Times has not been friendly to us for quite some time. Gee, the pic to me looks like they were more intent on picking a photo that showed the faces of sex offenders than on showing the crowd that participated — and they specifically named two of them in the photo.

I have uploaded the pic to:

Would you have expected anything less from the biased news outlets?

Unless there is violence it’s not news worthy. If we were violent the “violent sex offenders” would be all over the news.

Paul Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945)
“He who controls the medium controls the message. He who controls the message controls the masses.”

Can you post a link?

Nathan, unless they have updated it, it only showed up in the hard copy of the L.A. Times. I immediately went on the Times web page to link it for everyone and it wasn’t there. Maybe due to it only being a photo with caption and no article.

By the way, that was me in the photo with Frank (unidentified) and Jim Orey and a woman I didn’t get introduced to.

okay thanks Im wearing hat and sunglasses.

There have been protests by Registered Citizens long before 2015, Janice. Miami, Columbus OH, and Coalinga all had a protest on behalf of Registered Citizens. We just haven’t held one in a few years.

Time to start another one?

I organized the one in Coalinga at CSH and, while it was tremendously uplifting for the inmates/detainees and did generate a bit of local media coverage, we were unable to sustain much ongoing interest. It could have been better attended, with about twenty-five or so participants. On the other hand, it could have been worse.

Breaking through to attract sufficient numbers to these events, including the upcoming one immediately following the next IML hearing, is something we’re going to have to figure out.

We need some event organizers and to generate buzz in the absence of a media that are loathe to help provide it.

If the society should fear anyone it should be the media and the politicians that they voted for that can’t and will not tell the truth. (Someone save us all)

“Sex Offenders to Protest Today”, no one showed up to voice disagreement with the protest.

This mean Carson City “Blinked” when we show up.

This CLEARLY PROVES that NOBODY CARES if sex offenders show up in parks.

You can’t have seriously expected anything else? Why would they have any motivation to make us look strong? The world is against us, remember? We are vilified and not worth the paper the news was printed on, in their opinion. Like the San Diego politician said after the ruling, “Once we are convicted, we should never have rights.” We are fighting an uphill battle: Politicians are against us, the public is against us, the mainstream media will side with whomever buys “papers”…we are a minority, and a small one at that. This protest was never about getting sympathy from the media. It was standing up to Carson and showing them we won’t back down, that we will not go away, and that we won’t lay down without a fight. All revolutions were won with sacrifice. Up against overwhelming odds. All we want is what our society has told us exists: a second chance. And yet the prevailing winds are blowing against us. Stay focused on the fight, not the triviality of the paper giving us empathy, because there is little of that out there. Don’t forget that.

Interesting points, Jo, and it makes me think…

Huh! There’s a lot going on politically with Carson right now; elections for board members, trying to woo NFL franchises to the city, etc. Do we really think they could possibly be happy with a bunch of those “yucky” registered citizens, family and friends marching up and down the streets (legally, with ZERO they can do about it) waving signs at motorists and media? Maybe… jut maybe… it’s better not to pass regulations which would bring this kind of attention to their city. Maybe?

If so, we need proactive protests in other cities. Be a gigantic pain in the ass and make very, VERY clear that if they pass said regulations – we’re going to be marching, yelling, singing even MORE.

And how about Carson using some of that oil revenue to provide some really nice parks for children and their parents? That park we marched to was really sad. It was cheap land, putting children in a utility easement, under high voltage power lines and over an oil pipeline. Now that really shows how they are concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the poorer children of Carson.

” trying to woo NFL franchises to the city,”

I should have thought of that and make a sign something like..

“Sex offender have the right to go to NFL Football game “

“And yet the prevailing winds are blowing against us.” We have to remember airplanes take flight against prevailing winds.

They could have bring some “friends” and stand between us and the park claiming to be “protecting the children”

This city and other-like cities and counties Fails to understand ….Their “war” is really against…is really directed at the Constitution ….we are United States citizens and as such have fundamental rights as freedom is indivisible ..with liberty and justice for ALL……their “war” is misguided and further proof registry is punitive ..blatant proof.

This so-called “war” against sex offenders is not only misguided, but misdirected, unnecessary, cruel, dangerous and wasteful.

We need to hold a protest whenever someone on the registry (or someone mistaken to be a registrant) becomes victim of vigilantism, not only when cities disobey the law. I’m game.

Now that we have led our first protest, we are thinking of others. One idea is to have a protest in Sacramento to educate the public about registered citizens who have been murdered by vigilantes. The list includes but unfortunately is not limited to Michael Dodele (Lake County), Bobby Ray Rainwater (Orange County), and Donald Crisp (Monterey County). A protest like this could lead to amendments to the state and federal hate crimes acts in order to include registered citizens.

Great Idea!!
next time someone is seriously injured

We NEED to be there!

This remind me of the movie
Where “Malcolm X and a small group of Muslims went to the police station and demanded to see Hinton.[66] Police initially denied that any Muslims were being held, but when the crowd grew to about five hundred they allowed Malcolm X to speak with Hinton,[68] after which, at Malcolm X’s insistence, an ambulance took Hinton to Harlem Hospital.[69]

Hinton’s injuries were treated and by the time he was returned to the police station, some four thousand people had gathered outside”

Anyway, have your backpack pack for 1 or 2 days and get ready for an candle memorial service next time an rc is injuries. It would have be within the next few days.

I’d like to be part of an anti vigilante movement. Maybe I can swing a trip to Sacramento, and of course I can make signs. Better if some of us can car pool from our various far flung counties to save on costs, and get more people to go. I’d like to see the Capitol.

Molly*** I did send Dianne Jacob an email yesterday and used some of your suggestions.

some of her quotes, “residence restriction are “out the window” “safe no longer”
“once they commit an offense they “lose their rights”, and should stay locked up”

It is just so amazing at how ignorant these people really are.

Looks like Joel Anderson will be running against her, next election. Will he be just as bad or worse?

My email to her highness…

Thank you for your comments today on TV.

Fortunately, the United States sees things differently,
and fortunately we have a Constitution that ensures
politicians, such as yourself, do not subvert Constitutionally
ensured rights of individuals.

I committed an offense 20 years ago, and have subsequently
become a successful businessman, helping underprivileged and at risk kids in group homes and foster care. I employ Californians in my business and have led an good law abiding life since then.

I was raped at 14 years old by a stranger, carried that shame
and guilt with me until I offended in my 20s. Had I had a support
group that I felt comfortable opening up about the molest/rape I
endured, I would likely not have acted out.

Thankfully, the United States Government allows people to rebuild,
a second chance. I think you should take a second look at things
before lumping everyone into one basket

My email to Ms. Jacobs:

Dear Ms. Jacob:

I was shocked and appalled by your comments regarding 290 registrants. In your world, you equate 290 registrants with violent sexual predators raping little children. If you examined the codes for registrable offenses, you will find that there are codes that have nothing to do with touching a child. Additionally, California’s unlawful sex laws (16-17 years of age) do not exist in as many as 30 states in the U.S. as the age of consent is lower. Yet you continue to slander every 290 registrant as child rapists.

I am a registered citizen. During my pre-trial, I was told that I was factually the victim but legally in the wrong. Out of fear, I chose to plea bargain. I learned an inconvenient truth that the justice system is only a legal business where a district attorney’s ultimate goal is to have a high conviction rate. It is never about justice.

I went through the mandated treatment and passed the polygraph test after providing a statement that I was, in fact, the victim. I have since had my record reduced to misdemeanors and expunged. Essentially, my record is clean. Yet, I will have to register for life.

I am an upstanding citizen in my community. I completed my master’s degree and have gainful employment in a respectable profession. I pay taxes and break no laws. Yet, I still have to register for life.

Why should I and many other registered citizens who have already paid their debt long ago, who are contributing members to society, who have families, who want nothing more than to live their life in peace, why should we (as you stated) lose our freedoms, lose our rights, and stay locked up? We are still American citizens protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Rather than continue the myth that registered citizens have a high re-offense rate (which stands at only 1.8%), read the California Sex Offender Management Board’s (CASOMB) report on the failure of the sex offender registry’s intent. It does not work in its current form. In my opinion, it will never work because new sex offenses are overwhelmingly committed by those who are known to the victim and not on the registry.

Shame on you Ms. Jacobs, for deceiving our fellow Americans with the sex offender myth. Shame on you for tearing up the U.S. Constitution.

It seems Ms. Jacobs is a repeat offender when it comes to misrepresenting the facts in order to use her office to influence legislation:
“On March 14, 2000, the Board of Supervisors agreed to pay approximately $65,000 in attorney’s fees for its unwarranted withholding of public documents from the RHWIC.” (

Here is what I wrote…
Like you, I am a native San Diegan. My Great Grandparents arrived in San Diego in the early 1900’s. My Grandfather worked for the City of San Diego, and my father’s picture hangs in one of our Hall of Fame.
My husband and I have been married for 43 years, he served his country, and recently retired after 43 years of service with a local company. I too retired from my state job of working with at risk students. We also own a business in the East County.

I wanted to address a very unpopular subject. The subject matter is something that I don’t feel you are very enlightened on. Our constitution is what makes our country great and the envy of the world. I would like to remind you that you are our elected official and registrants, the family members and friends live in your district. I am shocked that you would suggest that registrants should not have any rights. There are many listed on our Megan’s website that pose no risk to the public. I am not suggesting that there aren’t those that do, but the state needs a different system and not a blanket system that demonizes everyone. The research suggests that 90% of those committing a new sexual offense are not on any public registry.

My grandmother was 14 and my grandfather was 20 when they married. They had a very successful and happy life and produced three very successful and wonderful San Diego citizens.
Today, you would consider my grandfather “one of those” a predator and monster. I resent that and your statements. There is a lot of evidence and a lot of studies that have been done that you should read before you make such outlandish and blanket statements.

There are many different reasons and every situation is different as to how and why someone might be accused of a sexual offense.
We have a government office whose job it is to study these issues and make recommendations to our state. California Sex Offender Management Board has reported that the residency restrictions don’t protect any one. I would kindly suggest you read it because it seems clear that you lack the knowledge or the research of the registry.

I have a question. Can we sue Dianne Jacob for defamation of character? She used false information and used social media to disseminate it intentionally to further demean RCs. Can we? Huh,huh? LOL!!!

I e-mailed her office and told her how ignorant she was and start giving the true statistics. For her to be in her position and NOT know what is going on in her own county is just ignorance on her part.

Unfortunately Joel Anderson was a big supporter of Jessica’s law so I doubt he will be any better.

This was my email to Dianne
Hi Dianne –

It’s easy to just repeat a popular opinion, even if it is wrong. It’s much harder and takes a lot more courage to do the right thing and stand up for the rights of all Californians. I don’t expect you to be a Caesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony or Gavin Newsom nor do I think you will ever give a speech which will challenge the status quo and changed the world like JFK, Martin Luther King or Lincoln. I do however expect you to acknowledge the only reason women, blacks, homosexuals, the mentally retarded and yes, even released convicted sex offenders, have rights is because of our Constitution. The Constitution is what makes us all equal and makes this country great.

The California Supreme Court found that the Jessica’s Law residency restrictions could not even pass the lowest bar, the rational bases test. The Court found that these laws not only don’t make our children safer, they actually make our children less safe.

Out of 73,481 sex offenders living in California communities, 111 were re-arrested for a new sex offense in 2013 (the latest numbers available). That means the recidivism rate for sex offenders is 0.151%, closer to 0% than to 1%.

You may believe sex offenders should not have any rights but before you push stereotypes based on 25 year old repudiated data out to your constituents, read the Taylor opinion for yourself. Anything less is a breach of public trust.

You can choose to not be Anita Bryant, Joseph McCarthy or George Wallace. History has not treated them kindly.

Have some courage Dianne.

Molly: Do you have a source for the stats you mention for re offense? And yes, we know it’s low, but this is a one year rate and typically, the rate for the long term, 15 to 20 years, is 2% to 5% for low risk offenders. Still much lower then the media portrays.

Thanks! for your emailed response to Dianne.

If you are interested in the full R. Karl Hanson Study that forms the basis of the CASOMB tiering report, put this in Google search: (First link pdf download) “High-Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever”

If I may be allowed to nit pick … a recidivist is defined as someone who was incarcerated and subsequently re-incarcerated. For sex offenders, that number is very high because the conditions of parole are so ridiculous. When you take out those who violated the conditions of parole (88%) and those who did not properly register (7%) and those who committed other crimes (3%) you are left with about 2% who committed new sex crimes. Keep in mind that these are only people on parole.

The real question is, “How many sex offenders commit new sex offenses?” We know how many sex offender parolees commit new sex offenses and we know that the enormous bulk of re-offenses occur in the first three years after release from incarceration. But I am not aware of any government agency that keeps track of how many sex offenders re-offend.

Isn’t that odd? Since there are so many resources devoted to preventing sex offenders from re-offending (and so many rights abridged in doing so) wouldn’t you think that policy makers would want to know how things were going?

I have a theory. Those who keep statistics know that the number is very low, but they have no interest in letting the public know because it contradicts the prevailing meme that sex offenders frequently re-offend. There are no statistics kept about how many police officers kill unarmed black people because the people who keep statistics like that don’t want to contradict the meme that the police exist to serve and protect.

I think a big step forward for us would be to get the Attorney General to publish annually the number of RSOs who commit new sex offenses. Policy makers ought to demand it.

Re-read recent post on this site with quotes by Goebbels, the NAZI propagandist. Manufacturing of consent is prevalent in government, and one way to mold public opinion is to not record certain things you don’t fit the official message.

@NPS, @Molly, @JM, @Jo and others…. 10 thumbs up, if I could, for your letters to Oberfeldwebel err, Supervisor Jacobs.

Yes, great job everyone. Now we need to send copies to KUSI and any rivals Ms. Jacobs and the TV station may have. Remind them that according to reliable data the residency restrictions are actually compromising public safety. This makes their views an obstruction of justice and the use of their influence for personal aggrandizement IMMORAL.

Hi JBCal –
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
2013 Outcome Evaluation Report
page 26 Table 12
1.8% recidivism for new sex offenses as measured against sex offenders who recidivated
111 total offenders for a new sex offense
73,481 offenders living in the community as of tonight (Tonight’s Megan’s List statistics, March 10, 2015)
111 is 0.151% of 73,481

Molly, I know this is a little different subject matter…since you are talking about recidivism… if I am to understand your count correctly, your list of registrants living in the community was taken from Megan’s list and that does not account for all the registrants who are not listed on Megan’s list. Is that right?
Since there are many required to register that are not listed publicly.

Do you also know how many more registrants are incarcerated? Just curious if we had a total count for California, and that would include those listed on Megan’s website, those not on the website, those in jails and in state and federal prisons.

Molly: Thanks for the source info. I do statistical work for CARSOL and am very familiar with this report. In fact we provided this very information to legislators in Sacramento in the January lobby efforts.

The data presented by CDCR is somewhat confusing (purposely, I imagine). If you look at the table right above, #11, you will see that all the data in this report refers to FY 2008-09 and includes only information on PAROLEES released and followed for 3 years. So, CDCR released 8,942 parolees in FY 08-09 who were “registered.” Of this number, 111 committed a new “sex offense” over 3 years. Or an average of 37 a year. The sex re-offense rate for 3 years on this sub-group of 8,942 is 1.2% or ~.4% per year, over the first 3 years. (Not the 1.8% they report I might add.)

We know this figure goes down a lot after 3 years and 10 years and is extremely low after 15 years offense free. In fact, at this point, the sex re-offense is LOWER for registrants then for those convicted of a non-sex offense and it’s the whole argument that registration for life is not practical or needed.

After all, CASOMB unanimously voted to approve tiering in the Ap 2014 report based on these analyses.

CDCR, Cal DOJ, and CASOMB do not appear to release “sex re-offense” rates for the entire registrant population within the community, I suspect, because the number is surprisingly low and would counter politician’s claims.

The Hanson report cited gives a very good, 26+ pages of information and statistics on registrant re-offenses.

Thanks! Molly

1.8% is re-offense in relation to the recidivists, the ones who went back to jail. 1.2% is re-offense in relation to total parolees in the study group.

…and yes I know I’m cheating a little but I don’t have info on the average number of registrants in 2013. Since the total number of new sex offenses in 2012 was also 111 (which is kind of weird) I figured utilizing total registrants in the community now was a fair number because who knows, maybe when the new stats come out for 2014 (which should be soon) there will be 111 recidivists for a new sex offense again…LOL

molly said “expect you to be a Caesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony or Gavin Newsom”

Newsom supported prop 35, and years prior, wanted to install cameras on every street corner. But he was most outspoken about his disdain for Prop 8, which must be why you would group him with those other heroes.

Hi JM –
Cut and pasted from Megan’s List Website:

NOTE: The below statistics are acquired from the California Sex Offender Registry and are updated daily. Statistics for: 3/10/2015


Full Address 41,013
ZIP Code/Conditional 11,397
Transient 6,275
In Violation 15,520
Incarcerated 23,802
Deported 11,230
No Post (Undisclosed) 25,478
Excluded 5,035

The below total reflects the number of registrants displayed on the Public Megan’s Law Internet site. This number does not include the total number of registrants that are No Post or Excluded:


The below total reflects the total number of registrants living in the community. This number does not include the number of registrants that are Incarcerated or Deported:


When the registry first hit the Internet in the early 2000’s right after Smith v. Doe and before Jessica’s Law, the address to zip code registrants were reversed, at least 3 zip code registrants per 1 full address registrant. I don’t know if they had transient population, but it would have been magnitudes lower, especially the parolees.

I am not sure what happened to switch that metric.

Hey thanks JBCal, that does make sense.
So would it be true to say the latest figures available show a 3 year recidivism rate for paroled sex offenders committing a new sex offense is closer to 1% then to 1.5%?
And would it be correct to say the 3 year recidivism rate for paroled sex offenders as measured against total sex offenders living in the community is 0.151%? And would that 0.151% rate even be meaningful? Or can we figure out a sentence that makes that 0.151% meaningful?
Perhaps representing the three year recidivism rate for paroled sex offenders committing a new sex offense averaged 0.41% per year?
Clearly I’m not a mathematics genius but if our opponents are going to miss-represent the number so outrageously maybe we can figure out a way (that is true) to represent a closer to zero then 1% 3 year recidivism rate of parolees committing a new sex offense…

Molly- The .151% number could create more problems then it helps and is not a good number. Even “good” numbers get the political rebuttal: “Even if it helps one child..” So, unless it’s zero, and statistically it never can be, all this can be problematic.

Quoting Law Enforcement is always helpful/better. And CASOMB says 95% of the time it is NOT a registrant. That’s a 20 to 1 ratio. Further, the fact that any ex-convict with a non-sex offense is HIGHER risk then a registrant after 15 years per CASOMB and law enforcement, let’s you ask the question: “Why aren’t they required to register?”

The weakness of the “for life” registry is no “due process” after 15+ years of being offense free to counter the “dangerous” public safety vs privacy argument of Smith v. Doe.

The .4% per year for the first 3 years of parolees is correct and quotable and we have scientific research that it declines substantially ever year. The graph in the end of the CASOMB tiering report of the “Redemption Line” is very strong and has the support / endorsement of some important CA DA’s

JBCal do you by chance have a copy of a 1988 report entitled “Effectiveness of Statutory Requirements for the Registration of Sex Offenders – A Report to the California State Legislature” by R. Lewis? Apparently it can be ordered from the CA DOJ but when I click on the link it wants me to set up Microsoft account which I really don’t want to do…

Molly- Reports more then 10 years old are not givien much credence in this area because so much current research by R. Karl Hanson and others have repudiated previous assumptions. The Hanson paper is a meta analyses of 21 different studies and 7,740 offenders and is statistically significant and only one year old.

You will see by the large range of results from the various studies, why this topic is so hard to have a single percentage answer. Unfortunately.

There is a long list of current reports in the footnotes if you prefer further research and data.

Great info JBCal, you are a wealth of knowledge and like I said, I will NEVER be mistaken for a mathematician 🙂
Only my opinion but I don’t think the winning argument is going to be due process. Of course I’m most likely wrong, it sure wouldn’t be the first time. I’m working on a different angle and was hoping for some help if you had the report. It’s probably a stupid idea but I don’t think anyone has tried it yet.
Thanks anyway –

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x