It’s been over a year since Out Of The Closet and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation moved out of the yellow building on the corner of Church and Duboce, and finally, a new tenant has emerged. Sharper Future, an outpatient clinic which helps rehabilitate individuals who have been convicted of sex crimes, will be moving into the 7,400 square foot space at the end of this month. Full Article
Related posts
-
CA: Bill to make purchasing children for sex a felony in California moves forward, but with some changes
Source: kcra.com 4/16/24 SACRAMENTO, Calif. —A key California Senate committee on Tuesday moved forward with a... -
CA: Purchasing a child for sex is a misdemeanor in California, lawmakers to debate classifying it as a felony
CLICK HERE FOR UPDATED INFORMATION (as of 4/16/24) Source: kcra.com 4/13/24 SACRAMENTO, Calif. —California lawmakers... -
NE: Nebraska lawmakers pass a bill to restore voting rights to newly released felons
Source: apnews.com 4/12/24 OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska lawmakers passed a bill Thursday to restore the...
The allegations of the comments of this submission are scandalous to be sure. But unfortunately — at least based on my experience in working with this crooked company — they are true. Rigged practices as polygraph and lie detector scams (with abusively arrogant polygraph examiners [“polygraphers”] who hypocritically lie themselves), as well as labeling people “High Risk Sex Offender” (HRSO) based on the STATIC-99R scam have no place in the “treatment” of helping people. These unethical practices just set people up to fail. If anything, it just proves how much of con artists the “clinicians” at Sharper Future are. Whether they be pseudo psychologists, therapists… or the unlicensed intern not qualified to practice. This program is a big joke designed to generate profit for CEO Tom Tobin and Mary Perry Miller. They sell the Containment Model and its Containment Meeting as a sort of snakeoil. The Containment Model throws client confidentiality right out the window. Shut them down!
You’re right. If someone is “low risk,” then why have them register?
The Static-99R is a fraudulent “actuarial instrument” that wrongfully labels “high-risk” people. Call me cynical; but I suspect there is a dark, underlying motive to why many support the static scores:
Our leaders invest a lot of political capital into vilifying “sex offenders.” George and Sharon Runner, for example. Senator Chris Smith, who authored International Megan’s Law. Our country’s highest judge, John Roberts, who — on November 13, 2002 — argued Smith v. Doe as his last case before becoming chief justice. Even Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote Smith v. Doe, citing his faulty recidivism statistics in McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002). Just some of the many disingenuous power-players in government whose credibility rests on their vilification of the over 800,000 U.S. citizens labeled ‘sex offender.’ Even many offense-free years after one has paid with incarceration (and/or probation or parole), they do not want ‘sex offenders’ to move on. Most importantly, they cannot afford to be proved wrong.
A lot of jobs rest on the backs of ‘sex offenders.’ Detectives and police officers who must spend time processing each ‘sex offender’ — whether one must register every month, 90 days, or annually — as well as conduct compliance checks. Prosecutors who defend Megan’s Law. From Kamala Harris’ California Department of “Justice” (not to mention the U.S. Attorney’s Office)… all they way down to district attorney’s offices — who prosecute failure to register type offenses. Probation and parole officers (and the GPS ankle bracelet companies their agencies pay millions to). The salaries and pension costs that fund all of this must cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It is no wonder CalPERS is going bankrupt!
Then there are the government-backed pseudo-psychologists whose vested interests are in creating pseudo-science that support the very laws of the bureaucracy that fund the existence of their careers. “Treatment” programs like Sharper Future rely on pseudo-psychology. As mentioned above: questionable government contracts, CEOs of ‘treatment’ programs, psychiatrists/psychologists/therapists/clinicians/interns, polygraphers.
Even the Abel Assessment of Sexual Interest (“AASI”), which cost taxpayers $2,500 for licensing and $99 to administer for EACH sex offender — despite being struck-down for having error rates of “poor” to “appalling” by the U.S. Courts of Appeals — is used by programs like Sharper Future. See United States v. Birdsbill, No. 03-30204 (9th Cir. May 4, 2004); also In Re CDK, 64 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App. 2002) [Abel’s “components could be mathematically based, founded upon indisputable empirical research, or simply the magic of young Harry Potters’ mixing potions at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.”].
The creators of the Static-99R — Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton — provide the air of pretended scientific credibility that those with vested interests need to rationalize the necessity of their services. But the Static-99R does a much more important thing: it hedges against future laws that may curtail the harshness of current laws. It provides a contingency, as well as diversifies against future loss.
By labeling ‘sex offenders’ high risk or low risk, hard-liners can always rationalize future laws that burden so-called “high risk sex offenders” (HRSO). But the problem is that ‘high risk’ is determined by an arbitrary score that cuts off at “6.” More points are added for nonsensical factors, like whether one has lived with a “lover” for at least 2 years — and perversely adds more points for “non-contact” offenses. Logically, the Static-99R is at best flawed; but at worst a complete fraud.
Look at the Static-99R “coding form” for yourself to see this scam:
http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf
Based on 10 so-called “risk factors,” the Static-99R creators, Tom Tobin, CASOMB, Sharper Future, and our government claim the future — as well as human behavior — can be predicted. Personally, I think this is hogwash.
– Firstly, as you can see in ‘risk factor’ number 1, only “age at release” is scored. A person’s CURRENT AGE is not at all factored into the static score. It’s very stupid for a so-called “instrument” to assume people will always remain the same risk as the moment they are released from prison or jail. The fact this outlandish assumption determines one’s lifetime score is even more troubling. People mature with age.
– Secondly, as you can see in ‘risk factor’ number 7, more points are perversely added for a ‘non-contact’ offense. Violent offenses get no points. This is simply not logical.
– Third, psychological treatment is not at all factored into the static score. Studies prove psychological treatment as helpful in reducing recidivism.
– Finally, offense-free years in the community is *NOT AT ALL* factored into the static score. Studies show that this is the most important factor that determines whether one will recidivate. After 17 years of offense-free behavior while free in the community, even so-called ‘high risk sex offenders’ are not likely to recidivate than anyone else who has never committed a sex crime.
The Static-99R creators — or “developers,” as they like to call themselves — Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton are NOT statisticians. They are Canadian psychologists with no undergraduate or graduate degrees in math or statistics. The Static-99R uses a sample of “particularly violent” offenders from the 1970s; it does not reflect the more diverse crimes now requiring registration in 2016. In California, for example, there are over 40 offenses requiring lifetime sex offender registration.
Here is an article that highlights only some of the many flaws to the Static-99 and Static-99R:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/these-10-questions-can-mean-life-behind-bars/
One quote was particularly troubling from Aldhous’ article. The quote dealt with how all types of sex-crimes — both violent and non-contact — are lumped together, and how the Static tests do not differentiate between the SEVERITY of potential future offenses:
“Static-99 scores do not predict the severity of potential future offenses, however. Rapes involving extreme violence and the abuse of young children are LUMPED TOGETHER with crimes like voyeurism and indecent exposure.” (capitalized for emphasis).
Allen Frances, MD — along with two Clinical Professors of Psychiatry from the University of Southern California (USC), Keck School of Medicine — discredited the Static-99 and Static-99R. Dr. Francis is a real doctor, unlike the Tom Tobin and Karl Hanson types. Dr. Francis is Chairman and Professor Emeritus at Duke University School of Medicine. He is also Chair of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (aka “The Bible of Psychiatry”). Here are some excerpts from the Professors’ paper:
“Several concerns are raised about this domination of the Static-99/Static-99R in sexual recidivism risk assessments, not the least of which is the applicability of group norms to individuals differing from the samples on which the risk values were derived. Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is DUBIOUS, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on UNPUBLISHED manuscripts and presentations to document methods.” (capitalized for emphasis).
The Professors conclude:
“Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, VIOLATE THE BASIC TENETS OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual. Two core elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. Both of these elements are lacking in Static-99 and Static-99R research reviews. Thus, a call for caution must be sounded when using these tools to make weighty decisions involving an individual’s liberty and the protection of public safety.” (capitalized for emphasis).
Dr. Frances’ paper was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law; it can be found here: http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/3/400.full
So to make it clear: real doctors consider the Static-99R to be “dubious,” reliant on “unpublished manuscripts and presentations,” and the Static-99R “violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine.”
That is not all. The Static-99 ‘developers’ — Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton — refuse to allow independent researchers to freely verify their data. The ‘developers’ claim the data behind the Static-99R is a “trade secret,” which violates the American Psychological Association Ethics Code, section 8.14. Here is a link:
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/judge-bars-static-99r-risk-tool-from.html
So I must ask: what are the Canadian Static-99 ‘developers’ hiding? Considering the impact their Frankenstein shenanigan has on people, as well as its increased use in our laws, why are they not open to transparency? Certainly they must have confidence in their 1970s derived statistics, no?
We should have a right to know.
Here is another article that interviews a person who is indefinitely detained because of the static score:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/10/civil_commitment_laws_allow_authorities_to_keep_people_locked_up_indefinitely.html
In response to scrutiny, Hanson, Harris, a Leslie Harris, and Thornton wrote a paper titled “High Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever.” They state the following:
“Whereas the 5 year sexual recidivism rate for high risk sex offenders was 22% from the time of release, this rate decreased to 4.2% for the offenders in the same static risk category who remained offence-free in the community for 10 years. The recidivism rates of the low risk offenders were consistently low (1% to 5%) for all time periods.”
(Note: Only 22 percent accuracy in flagging ‘high risk’ offenders within a 5-year period, not accounting for those incorrectly categorized as ‘low risk’ or periods exceeding 5-years. Thus, for one correctly flagged high risk individual, about three to four people are incorrectly flagged. The ‘high risk’ label is more inaccurate than not [i.e. less than chance], especially after 5-years.)
Hanson et al.’s paper is an attempt to equivocate from the claims of the Static-99R. Why, after many people have been harmed by the Static, would Hanson suddenly claim that “high risk” offenders “may” not be high risk forever (as the data clearly shows they are not)? Perhaps the ‘developers” very own data would invalidate the very same test they have peddled for years? This just shows how disingenuous these people are.
4.2 percent should not be considered high risk. Especially after 17 years, when even people given the ‘high risk’ label — who have remained offense-free since — are no more likely to recidivate than someone who has never been convicted of a sex crime. Yet the Static-99R continues to assume people and life are static. The fallacy to the Static-99R can be found in its very name: “static.”
To the contrary: people and life are dynamic. People are not ‘static.’ No actuarial “instrument” can predict human behavior.
Had ‘developers’ Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton been statisticians, they would have been aware of Statistics’ most important tenet: Correlation does not imply causation. The Static-99 and Static-99R ignorantly flouts this very basic tenet.
Aldhous, from the BuzzFeed News article I cite above, also cites a clear admission from one of the Static-99R’s developers saying, “‘It was very much about the triage of prison populations,’ [David] Thornton said. ‘It wasn’t really about the forensic assessment of individual offenders.'”
The ‘developers’ also admit that their ‘instrument’ is “wildly unstable.”
Yet the Static-99R will be incorporated into a tiered registry, used for the “forensic assessment of individual offenders.”
Of final note, the claims of the Static-99R eerily resemble the faulty, fortune-telling Orwellian technology featured in the Minority Report:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nxy-cQld4kg
I have been following your comments for a few days and have found them most enlightening (but equal parts troubling, as our government, and its corrupt profiteers, appear intent in selling policy based off of deceptive science and statistics). I think the comments of this article are ****most valuable**** because it sheds light on complicated and insincere topics exploited by quasi-experts. But I am curious — what is everyone’s input to the California Department of Justice’s claim that the Static-99R is 70% to 75% accurate? This was brought up in a different ACSOL post, but it seems important enough to incorporate into this line of discussion. Personally, I think the CA DOJ must be compelled to release the data on which their claim relies. It just seems like DOJ dishonestly manipulated statistics to sell a dubious actuarial instrument. Here is a link to the California Department of Justice’s 70% to 75% claim: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/riskfaq.aspx?lang=ENGLISH
So is it safe to say they’re sticking us in the same closet the other people came out of?
I’m here all week folks! No, seriously, I have little else going on right now. 🙂
The discussions about the static 99 are moot. There are just too many problems with the static … even with the 99R version. In fact, the 99R version just gives a false sense of security as to its accuracy. Sure one of the 99R’s big change is it factors “age” into score. But only age at release from jail/prison … not current age. So the static scam fails to evolve with a person’s maturity. Static score stays the same throughout a person’s life. Again … discussion as to the static 99 tests is moot. Because the static 99 and 99R are pure garbage to begin with. Sick and tired of the phony shrinks, police and probation that believe static 99 “statistical” hogwash.
This just came out a few days ago. It’s another good article that addresses bogus “risk” assessments (including the Static 99R):
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37895-how-risk-assessment-tools-are-condemning-people-to-indefinite-imprisonment
QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:
“Does the Static-99R predict whether someone with a sexual offense might harm again? Fundamentally, according to Dr. Brian Abbott, ‘social science research doesn’t have this ability,’ as ‘sexual recidivism risk science is too imprecise.’”
In my opinion, there are just too many problems with the Static 99 tests. Yes, both the Static and Static 99R are garbage. The static tests are pretty much exemplary of the Silicon Valley adage: “Garbage in, garbage out” (“GIGO”).
I know when CA RSOL was challenging the internet identifier bill in federal court, there were some suggestions that the state can use the Static 99R to narrowly tailor the restriction to so-called “high risk sex offenders” (HRSO). But the “HRSO” label is not always definitive to mean someone is high risk, as the Static 99R is too imprecise. The Static is a hit-or-miss predictor of human behavior.
The Static 99R is sometimes right (merely by chance), but wrong most of the time. Even a flip of a coin gets it right 50% of a time. And the Static’s accuracy in correctly predicting HRSOs is much less than 50%. So the Static 99 is a farce (and I dare say straight fraud).
It’s really unfortunate that California and Sharper Future type programs get away with using these unscientific “instruments.”
The phony baloney Static 99R scores have done one positive thing: it exposes the fraudsters who choose to use them. The Static 99 is no different than going to a fortune teller to read a crystal ball. The only difference is that the fortune tellers who use the Static 99 crap tend to hold doctorate degrees from low tier diploma mills. And the crystal ball upon which they rely is varnished with quack “math.”
The polygraph, aka “lie detector,” does not trouble me. If anything, we are able to discredit the “psychologists,” “therapists,” and Sharper Future type programs that subscribe to the poly. As many of you may already know: it is quackery. And its foolish use in “treatment” settings is unethical at best. But as many of you point out earlier, it is the Static-99R that is most troubling. One could argue that relying on a very limited “instrument,” an actuarial that determines one’s alleged risk-level based on 10 simple questions, is irresponsible at best. As many of you cite above, CURRENT age is not factored into the static score. Dementedly, only “age at release” from incarceration. So personally, I am troubled because the static score does not evolve with one’s age/maturity to determine a person’s ostensible “risk-level.” Equally troubling is that tiered registration legislation seems to propose that alleged “high risk” static scorers will be subject to lifetime registration, regardless of underlying offense.
I have a question: so the STATIC tests give non violent offenders a 1 point hit. But a violent offender gets 0 points? Seems like it should be the other way around.
So it seems entirely possible that non contact, first-time offenders are more likely to be (incorrectly) flagged as a “high risk sex offender.” And the violent offender is spared the 1 point that may or may not correctly predict his future as being “high risk?”
It’s already been mentioned by others above. But this is what seems most striking to me. That the STATIC gives non violent offenders the 1 point hit. A point not given to a violent offender.
So just how can an exhibitionist or voyeur score higher than a violent child molester or rapist (with all else being equal)? Apparently, the STATIC is not only able to predict a labeled “sex offenders’ future,” but the STATIC scam is also able to defy common logic.
As with everyone else, I don’t agree with the STATIC scam. Even if it’s the “best we have.” Maybe it’s better to do with something that will just pose many more legal dilemmas in the future (that may or may not be surmountable). At least in my opinion.
Static 99 & Static 99R are products of self interested parties, mostly corrupt government & pseudo psychologists, looking to further their respective interest(s). These self interested parties are clearly not concerned w/ adverse collateral or unintended consequence(s) that using the Static scams may lead to. For those that actually believe in the slippery slope the Static scams will lead to, I call to your attention that the Static scams were never originally intended to be used for the individualized assessment of people; it was only intended as a tool for the “triage of prison populations.”
Like Operation Boo, these Sharper Future type “treatment” programs are designed only to make the public feel that our government is doing something about the “problem” with sex offenders. In reality, escapades like Operation Boo and Sharper Future contracts only do one thing: they boost state funding for CDCR that burden taxpayers. Sure, it makes the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilition look good that they are doing something about the “problem” with sex offenders. But as time goes on — and people get smarter — the public will begin to realize that CDCR are a bunch of frauds for creating unneeded hysteria. Also, many will begin to realize that there is not even one instance of a sex offender harming a child on Halloween. Think about it: how is “rehabilitation” served when CDCR invites news and media along for their Operation Boo “raids?” The parole agents are just as much scam artists as the Sharper Future folks.
I’m just doing some research on Sharper Future and this, along with a few other message boards, popped up. I’m just going to say that Sharper Future is a HUGE SCAM. The fact Sharper Future relies on the polygraph (aka “lie detector”) to do its work says all we need to know. The creator of the lie detector, William Marston, literally admitted that the lie detector is a scam in the early 1900’s. Peer-reviewed studies also show the lie detector having about as much accuracy as a random guess or a simple coin toss. In other words, the lie detector is only theater.
Penn and Teller and Adam Ruins Everything literally did documentaries on why (and how) the polygraph is a scam.
The more we look into Sharper Future, I’m convinced that the “doctors” that operate this sham, which also goes under the name Pacific Forensic, should have their psychology and therapist licenses revoked for life!
Sharper Future and Pacific Forensic “doctors” and “therapists” are fraudulent! This is clear from their use of the lie detector, in their ironically dishonest “treatment” and “therapy” alone. Everything else this company does is icing on the cake, in proving the government is completely covered in corruption.
We can’t trust police. We can’t trust the courts. We can’t trust “judges.” And we can no longer trust “doctors” and “therapists,” ESPECIALLY the ones that work under Sharper Future.
America is already in the dumps, too late to rescue, thanks mostly to the Republicans who infected our “justice” and rehabilitation systems a long time ago. (Thank Ronald Reagan for closing 95% of mental hospitals and replacing them with prisons.)
Democrats are not much better, but still the lesser of two evils.
Anyway, the “sex offender” industry is very emblematic of why and how America is already in the dumps, too late to rescue. As we’ve seen in the past month, we can’t even trust so-called “supreme court justices” to tell the truth. Let alone a bunch of “doctors,” in $300k in student loan debt, doing Sharper Future’s dishonest, and dirty ass, work. Much less a “polygraph examiner,” armed with a GED, relying on his glorified electrocardiogram.
As we’re all now learning, America is a scam.