I am so pleased to be here and to witness again firsthand the incredible work being done by many different, yet all vital, agencies and organizations.
Through the continuous hard work of the Department of Justice’s Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) Office and this Symposium, progress continues to be made to obstruct the violent and destructive behavior of sexual predators worldwide. …
1. Research shows that sexual crimes reported to police decline by an average of 13% within a jurisdiction after enacting a registry. …
2. Research shows registrants are more than 10 times as likely to be arrested for a new sex crime as those not on the registry. To be clear, that does not mean most registrants will be rearrested for a new sex crime. But it does mean registrants represent far more risk than the general public. … Full Remarks (pdf)
Related
National Symposium on Sex Offender Management and Accountability
Someone should fact check this. I wonder how much is cherry picked to tell the narrative that they want to tell? Also anyone who thinks its not in the interest of any company, agency, group, organization, government, office, or movement to make themselves appear needed is in need of a reality check. That’s all this is; a government office coming out to justify its own existence and funding regardless of whether or not they are being honest.
Ummm. Is it me, or did he just provide false statistics. Can he not be challenged over false information?
“Research shows registrants are more than 10 times as likely to be arrested for a new sex crime as those not on the registry. To be clear, that does not mean most registrants will be rearrested for a new sex crime. But it does mean registrants represent far more risk than the general public.”
I find this statement a deliberate lie to justify the draconian laws that exist in this country. He should be sued.
absolutely no citing for any of their Statistics. just pulling shi…outof their as…. which will be used as some kind of facts in the future by some corrupt politician or da..these people need to be challenged to produce studies and cite their sources instead of just shooting off at the mouth…
Fine – but then why is Registration not required for ALL crimes? Say, Mr. Harlow – have you no interest in protecting me, my children and my neighbors from ALL crime?
Where is that study? And how does it break down by state? And what are the averages? California has had a registry for almost 70 years. Many states only for 20. What is that “Research”?
I thought that “4 times more likely” was sufficiently discredited. To be crystal clear – how many of these new non-sex crimes are Failure-to-Register crimes (on which the US Marshals base a lot of their existence) and crimes CAUSED by the marginalization of the very registration laws?
Adam Walsh was abducted and murdered. Thank you for that clarification. There was no evidence that he was ever sexually abused as only his head was recovered. Sure, some delusional drifter told some wild tale, but he died before not only being convicted, but before being charged. What, pray tell, then, does the abduction and murder have to do with a guy who hugged and kissed a 14 year old girl? It has everything to do with Adam Walsh’s mother who let her small child wander alone around a department store while she went shopping for home furnishings. It has everything to do with Adam Walsh’s father who dated Adam Walsh’s mother when she was 16 in a state where the age of consent is 17. Championing father? Hero? Pffft…. Tier II or III Sex Offender is more like it.
The point being…. that they are few and far between? That this registry has to do with only 1 out of every 20 cases of abuse have nothing to do with the registry? And that the other ones are not PREVENTED by your list? At least the second of the examples was a simple probation violation (big whoop). http://wkbn.com/2016/07/06/sex-offender-arrested-after-driving-in-struthers-parade
I am sorry… but do you think I cannot do simple math in my head? 1,000 out of 700,000 arrest warrants (not convictions, mind you) – is 1.5%. THAT is a number you base your salary and existence on?
Hey Mr. Harlow – if you happen to read this (I would not be surprised if you do) – DO shut me up. DO show me your data.
Okay…. I have just typed myself into a frenzy. I could go on and on. Pretty much every single sentence here should be picked apart, challenged, contradicted. I wish someone with a clearer head and more credence than myself would send back a formal response with a request, no, demand, for substance to this drivel dripping with pathos..
David writes “. Research shows that sexual crimes reported to police decline by an average of 13%
within a jurisdiction after enacting a registry.”
Research also shows that 95+% of sex crimes are committed by non-registrants. If 13% of sex crimes are now not being reported now with registries in existence, that means that the existence of a registry is stopping non-registrant sex crime from being reported. What a failure this statistic shows the registry to be.
“o This finding is consistent across thousands of jurisdictions, and has been
replicated across multiple high-quality and peer-reviewed studies published in
scholarly journals.”
Makes perfect sense.
“2. Research shows registrants are more than 10 times as likely to be arrested for a new sex
crime as those not on the registry. To be clear, that does not mean most registrants will
be rearrested for a new sex crime. But it does mean registrants represent far more risk
than the general public.”
Why not just state what percent of registrants reoffend? O wait, that would give the truthful low number, under 1%. Not close to being over 50%, but because of the propaganda it is very necessary to dispel the myth of a majority reoffending. The stat used by David is that registrants are 10 times more likely to commit a sex crime than the general public. If the study that produced David’s stat isloated registrants who have been crime -free for at least 17 years, the result would have been that the risk of offense is the same as that of someone in the general public, as Hansen’s study indicated. But even though researchers from the study that made the statistic David uses group all sex offenders together, regardless of how long the subjects were crime-free, to get the result that registrants are 10 times more likely to commit a sex crime than someone in the general public, its still a meaningless statistic since all risks mentioned are so low., they are negligeable. Kind of like the statistic that you have a 10 times greater chance of winning a 10 million dollar lotto jackpot than a 100 million lotto jackpot. Odds of winning either jackpot are so low that having one jackpot having a 10 times greater chance to be won, does not mean any action should be taken determinant on this irrelevant stat , such as buying more lotto tickets for the 10 million dollar jackpot. Using David’s stat of 10 times greater risk for a registrant to commit a sex crime than someone not on the registry coupled with the stat used by IML proponents that there is a 4 times greater risk of sex crime committed by a registrant than a non-registrant felon, there is a 2.5 times greater risk of a non-registrant felon committing a sex crime than someone in the general public. How come no sex registries for ‘all felons’ then? Using David’s logic, implementation of this ‘felon’ registry to protect against sex crime is the action to take.
Taxpayer s Wake Up…you’re getting Enroned..!
Sham info that forgetpunksname No One in this railroaded coerced to be on this list had anything to do with that incident….the communist system controls its people by coercion.
President Kennedy said one of the main difference’s of the communist system & democracy was that the communist system uses coercion to control its people.
Let the world see what system they use to register human beings.
No one in this Railroaded system in all these United States had anything to do with that norespect name law : No One.
This further showcases the extreme Wrongs with the (registry) railroaded system.
Here’s another example of their Wrongs & in the state of new jersey megEnron.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/nyregion/wrongfully-convicted-of-rape-a-new-jersey-man-finds-more-punishment-after-prison.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/nyregion/wrongfully-convicted-of-rape-a-new-jersey-man-finds-more-punishment-after-prison.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/nyregion/wrongfully-convicted-of-rape-a-new-jersey-man-finds-more-punishment-after-prison. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/nyregion/wrongfully-convicted-of-rape-a-new-jersey-man-finds-more-punishment-after-prison.html
When they said ‘registrant’ I thought hey! At least they cleaned up their language. Then they had to put “sex crime” in the same sentence.
If ‘registrants’ are 10 times more likely to be arrested for a new sex crime, then I’m still waiting for John Walsh, who dated an underage girl, to be hauled off to jail
“on any given day, approximately 30,000 have warrants for their arrest. Nearly 1,000 of these are for new contact-sex crimes or homicides. ”
He says on any given day 1,000 new crimes are committed by those on the reg or 350,000 plus a year.
Those are really scary numbers
Then he discredits the advocacy group that claims that there are 200,000 juveniles on the reg, saying that there are less than 2,000.
So what is the truth???
Many if not all of these government ( see, self ) funded organizations, are propaganda, bureaucratic funding machines running unchecked. One of the main reasons that we need to have an organized PR campaign is to have a coordinated, “I call BS on that” plan. Every time that there is an account, we need to push back. If we know there will be statements made before hand, our rep should be there to ask pointed questions and respond with statements that clearly show how one sided these groups are. The government says whatever suits their purpose with impunity, no consequences. It is the allowed BS published or quoted statements that are allowed to pass as a fact which dooms us. There is no political cover for any politician, Dem or Rep to do anything to slow down this train. Even if $5 a month, the RC’s and/or their families’ contributions would go a long way to at least pushing back. Count me in for $25 more. I get sick of it. What is repeated enough becomes what is perceived as fact. The world is flat.
A few interesting observations:
1. For the bulk of this speech he used the word “registrant” rather than “sex offender.” This is both fascinating and telling.
2. In this speech he felt the need to not only acknowledge but defend against the arguments being raised against the registry. This is also fascinating and telling. There’s never a need to defend against a non-issue. That he chose to address these issues in a speech that could have easily ignored them indicates the challenges raised by the civil rights advocacy groups has struck a nerve.
3. He’s using some really wonky number bending in his statistical quotes. It’s not mathematically possible for registrants to both a) commit sex offenses at a rate 10 times higher than the average population AND b) for up to 95% of new sex crimes to be committed by individuals not on any registry. I’m sure we’d all like to see the data he used to come up with these “facts.”
I call bullsh**!!!
He plays a little sleight of hand with the remarks about declining reporting of sex offenses. It is important to understand the distinction between sex offense rates vs. rates of reporting sex offenses to authorities. In other words, it is axiomatic in all areas of criminal justice that some crimes go either undetected or unreported to authorities. This means that rates of reporting to authorities will always be lower than the rate of actual offenses.
Research has consistently demonstrated that sex offense rates were dropping rapidly even before implementation of registration, and to my knowledge, there is no research that demonstrates that sex offense rates are impacted by registration.
Reporting is impacted, however, but this might not be the strong point that the USMS director casts it as. Given that much sexual abuse is intrafamilial, the competing hypothesis is that since registration essentially destroys the person and the family, reporting might well have declined due to the severity of the laws and their impact on people.
It’s irrelevent if that stat is true or not because the stat is irrevelent. The only stat that matters is the re-offense rate. Not the comparison of percentage numbers under 1 percent.
“Thank you for all you do to make and keep our communities safe
, and thank
God for the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.”
And for those of you who have been compliant for decades, Sorry!
Sorry, if we will be moving you from Tier 1 to Tier 3. But we don’t really care who we
screw in the process. We will do everything we can to punish SO’s and their families for their lifetimes.
It’s for the children.
***
1. Research shows that sexual crimes reported to police decline by an average of 13% within a jurisdiction after enacting a registry. …
***
So, you are bragging about the fact that friends and family of those that sexually abuse children are now much less likely to report sex offenses because they don’t want a primary bread winner in the family unable to ever secure a good job again??? So my kids are at risk because your “registry” has turned into such an inhumane punishment that people now aren’t getting arrested or being treated for deviant behavior and are instead likely to re-offend?
***
2. Research shows registrants are more than 10 times as likely to be arrested for a new sex crime as those not on the registry. To be clear, that does not mean most registrants will be rearrested for a new sex crime. But it does mean registrants represent far more risk than the general public.
***
Let’s fail to mention the part that after about 15 years the percent becomes the same as the general public even though the majority of registries are LIFETIME. Even if your math is correct, you aren’t sourcing your material or if the offenders had any type of treatment. Sure, if you jail an offender and then release him without treatment he will have a higher chance of doing it again. Why don’t you tell us the statistic for how much more likely a convicted drunk driver is to drink and drive again? I bet that will be much higher and have more of a need of public attention.
Show us the statistics next to the statistics of other crimes. How much more often does a drug offender get caught using drugs again VS the general population?
‘SMART’ needs a new, more appropriate charter: “Saving The Underage People In Danger”(STUPID)
Same nonsense, more sensible name
gag me!
“……., on any given day, approximately 30,000 have warrants for their arrest. Nearly 1,000 of these are for new contact-sex crimes or homicides.”
How can that even be possible. 700,000 Registrants….1000X365 days. = 365,000 warrants a year for a new sex crime. WTF!!!… so in two years every single person on the list will be re-arrested or have a new warrant. So comforting to know we have such brilliant people leading this country.
This HAS TO BE the most grotesque, absurd stretch of the truth I have ever read regarding SR’s.
This report must be used as an example of the outright lies that are being told.
i cant believe that out of all our donations to all these different sites that we don’t have some kind of lobbyists to put these people in check when these laws are being considered…
Public servants.. public service is to provide HONEST service for the public pay….harlow , you need to be fired and no further public pay for the deceptive misrepresentation Soviet-Stalin-Enron type propaganda maliciously false information you’re spewing to the public.
Your public service is full of shit.
“Research shows registrants are more than 10 times as likely to be arrested for a new sex crime as those not on the registry.” This is a ridiculous. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Those not on the registry, i.e. the general population, includes infants and toddlers, as well as about half women, who sexually offend at much lower rates than men. If I want to compare infants to registrants, I can say registrants are infinitely more likely to re-offend than infants. but it’s a meaningless statement. The only statistically valid way to do this is to compare a group of registrants, say men over 50, to the general population of men over 50. I suspect the percentage would would be much, much lower. And of course not nearly as scary.
Drunk Drivers commit more rapes, robberies, ect than any other Class.
this is from the SCOTUS blog site
The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA, has been percolating in the lower courts since its enactment in 2006. Convicted sex offenders seem to have attacked its registration requirements every which way, leaving a trail of lower court opinions that address everything from congressional authority to enact SORNA to the Tenth Amendment and related federalism concerns.
But the Supreme Court has not yet entered this thicket. Its two rulings on SORNA, both in 2010, involved relatively minor aspects of the Act, rather than the more significant constitutional issues. This case, the first set for oral argument this Term, is no different.
im still dumbfounded by this but it is what it is i guess..
the Pennsylvania Juvenile case in which the court granted complete relief from registration is very important and enlightening I definitely have to integrate it into my motion.. people should actually read that decision and just exclude the juvenile aspects of it and you can see how relevant it is and how easy it should be to apply their reasoning to adults as well…
This is one of the most disturbing and depressing things I’ve ever read.
The word “proud” was featured prominently throughout the article which is laughable because I have never seen a group of people so PROUD of something that is not only ineffectual, but displaces the lives of human beings while subjugating those (and those forced to register) to undue and untold risk by having their personal information broadcast online for any and everyone to see.
Do you believe that a war is being waged against you and your family now?
They fully intend to fight us every step of the way and will most likely use this cooked data espoused at this symposium at the next Supreme Court challenge.
Do you blame them? They are defending a million dollar industry and protecting all those cushy, security theater pie jobs and want to continue to look good in the eyes of the public while actually doing next to nothing.
Their efforts to keep Adam Walsh from “dying in vain” will always be in vain. The registry is retaliatory vengeance, not “justice” for Adam Walsh. It’s a sick and twisted revenge fantasy and magical thinking to believe that identification is awareness and somehow that equates to prevention. NONSENSE.