ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 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


California Re-Offense Rates Revealed

The overall re-offense rate for registrants in California is 4.8 percent, according to a recent report issued by Dr. Karl Hanson and colleagues. Of that total, the highest re-offense rate is for transients who lack stable housing.

The report also compared re-offense rates for registrants on parole and probation. The report found that registrants on parole have a higher rate of re-offense (6.1 percent) as compared to those on probation (4.3 percent).

Additional findings in the report include: Hispanics have the lowest rate of re-offense (3.06 percent) as compared to Whites (5.8 percent) and Blacks (6.44 percent). Finally, the report stated that registrants with higher Static-99R scores have a lower rate of re-offense than registrants with lower Static-99 R scores.

The overall purpose of the study which resulted in this report was to “update the predictive validity of Static-99R in California.” According to the report, the Static-99R works well in discriminating between those who re-offend and those who do not and therefore the results “support the continued use of Static-99R in California”.

Recidivism Report June 2016

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 do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • 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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So if I’m understanding this correctly, all those folks thinking a low static-99 is good have it backwards which answers why a non contact offence gives a higher score.
Funny how they have it setup?

I just looked up the form and boy am I confused:
Finally, the report stated that registrants with higher Static-99R scores have a lower rate of re-offense than registrants with lower Static-99 R scores.???
Seems like they have it written backwards?

It’s also funny how they only look at a recidivism period of up to 5-years. What about periods OVER 5-years (i.e. 10 yrs., 15 yrs., 20 yrs. etc.). I thought the Static-99R is applied for one’s lifetime? Should only be fair that a phony baloney actuarial “instrument” is examined for lifetime accuracy… NOT just a period of up to 5-years.

I laughed at the following statement: “The current findings support the continued use of
Static-99R in California.”

Of course a study by the California Department of “Justice” (Alejandro Restrepo, Annie Satariano) and one of the Static-99R’s OWN “DEVELOPERS” (H. Karl Hanson) would say such thing. They have a conflict-of-interest in a study making such a statement. This study is ostensibly scientific; but I think it’s only manipulated to make it SEEM that the Static-99R is a valuable tool.

However, the reality is that the HIGHEST static scores are still MORE INACCURATE THAN ACCURATE. Specifically, even the “high risk” scores are only about 20 percent accurate. So that means for about every five people labeled a “high risk sex offender,” four people are wrongfully labeled. Put in other terms: the Static-99R is much less accurate than a flip of a coin. And the Static-99R is less accurate than mere chance (< than 50%).

The Static-99R is a scam!

Very much a scam. The first time I took it, I was told the results were that I was an extreme narcissist because I was confident and was respected by my friends prior to this offense. When the statement is “people come to me for advice” was selected, that was seen as narcissism when at the time, people DID come to me for advice! I was also told that by selecting something saying I’m smarter than most, that was also narcissistic…in high school, I was consistently in the 97th percentile(or higher) on nationally given tests and my IQ is over 170, if that doesn’t qualify me as smarter than most, I don’t know what does.

The Static-99R was NEVER intended to determine alleged “risk” for a period greater than 10-years following release from jail or prison. This is inherent in the fact that the “norms” and “risk estimates” don’t estimate ‘risk’ for any period greater than 10-years.

The quote substantiating the fact that the Static-99R is very limited in ostensible fortune telling ability can be found in the “developers” very own “Coding Rules.”

The link to the ‘Coding Rules’ can be found here:

Here are some quotes that you may find pertinent. I include the page numbers for your own reference:

“In some cases, an evaluator may be faced with an offender who has had a substantial period at liberty in the community with opportunity to re-offend, but has not done so. In cases such as these, the risk of sexual re-offence probabilities produced by the STATIC-99 may not be reliable and adjustment should be considered (Please see Appendix #1).” p. 5

Here is another quote that you may be looking for:

“The STATIC-99 may be appropriate for offenders with a history of sexual offences but currently serving a sentence for a non-sexual offence. The STATIC-99 should be scored with the most recent sexual offence as the Index offence. The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offence before they were arrested for their current offence. STATIC-99 risk estimates would generally apply to offenders that had between two (2) and ten (10) years at liberty in the community without a new sexual offence but are currently serving a new sentence for a new technical (fail to comply) or other minor non-violent offence (shoplifting, Break and Enter). Where an offender did have a prolonged (two to ten years) sex-offence-free period in the community prior to their current non-sexual offence, the STATIC-99 estimates would be adjusted for time free using the chart in Appendix One – “Adjustments in risk based on time free”.” p. 7

If this seems confusing, it was probably constructed to be so as to protect the disingenuous ‘developers’ from liability. Not unlike the manner an appellate judge may write his/her opinion with much convolution: with the intent to protect oneself from criticism. It is no wonder that, in the below academic journal (cited in my more lengthy post), the author to the DSM (aka. “The Bible of Psychiatry”) — along with two USC Professors — cite the Static-99R as having a “dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications” when labeling this bogus static “instrument” as “dubious.”

But what strikes me most is the following sentence from page 7: “The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offence before they were arrested for their current offence.”

If the Static-99R is not good enough for someone REARRESTED after 10 years offense-free in the community, then it is only a logical inference to conclude that the Static-99R is NOT applicable to a person NEVER rearrested after 10 years offense-free in the community. Do you follow what I’m saying?

This claim seems in-line with the statistics of the Static-99R’s own ‘developers’ that even so-called “High Risk Sex Offenders” are no more likely to recidivate than anyone else when 17 years offense-free in the community.

So it seems CASOMB is not even applying this bogus “actuarial instrument” in a manner intended by its pseudo psychologist ‘developers’ when incorporating the Static into a tiered registry proposal.

CASOMB should actually be embarrassed of this fallacy — as it discredits the very premise of having 20 year, 30 year, and LIFETIME tiers under their tiered registry proposal. Especially when a 20-year, 30-year and/or *lifetime* tier relies on the Static-99R.

The Static-99R truly IS a “scam.”

Yeah, I isn’t lower meaning closer to zero? Lower number, less dangerous?

except if you score low on the Static 99, you’re still subjected to the registry. So it’s really a scam.

Maybe a dumb question, but does re-offend mean another sex charge? Or is, say, a registrant who gets a conviction for petty theft considered a reoffender?

We know from past articles, the real reoffense rate is below 2%, so I’m guessing this is one of those committing another crime kinda things.

Looks like a hack study, designed to prep us for a fictitious “tiered” registry that relies on this junk, phony baloney pseudo science.

Firstly the study only looks at a 5-year period. Is the Static-99R score not applied for one’s lifetime? This scam study does not look further than a 5-year period.

Secondly, look who the study is by. TWO of the four authors are with the California Department of Justice. Of course the California Department of Justice is going to manipulate a study as to support the Static-99R scam! The California DOJ is very much supportive of the Static-99R scam — and it’s not surprising that they would not say otherwise.

Third, the lead author — Seung C. Lee — is with Carleton University. “Carleton was ranked 276–300 in the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings, and 401–500th in the Academic Ranking of World Universities.” So we are talking about a study authored by a person from a fourth-tiered university (i.e. not very reputable).

Finally, it’s not surprising that R. Karl Hanson would support the Static-99R. After all, he — along with Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix and David Thornton — created the Static-99 scam. This study seems like another CONFLICT OF INTEREST in itself, lol.

After all, it was David Thornton himself that said the following: “'[The Static-99R] was very much about the triage of prison populations,’ Thornton said. ‘It wasn’t really about the forensic assessment of individual offenders.’”

Good point. The STATIC 99 SCAM norms and “risk” estimates only go up to 10 yrs max. Yet our dumb sh!?$ in Sacramento want to base 20, 30, lifetime tiers on stats that are only designed to allegedly “predict” crime 10 years out? Would be a different story if the STATIC 99R SCAM had risk estimates for more that 10 years. But it doesn’t!

The various Static 99 tests seem only concerned with a subject’s risk upon their release from custody, i.e. ‘future risk’ being limited to that anticipated future when they get out of prison. It says nothing about the meaningfulness of living in the community for decades offense-free nor does it offer the opportunity to reevaluate him (and it’s always a ‘him’) at some future date for the purposes of, say, retention on the Registry. In other words, it excludes the elapsed time during which the Registrant is minding his own business and conforming to society’s regulations and does not offer the opportunity of a re-test to reflect these dynamic factors.

This fact, alone, makes it a manifestly inappropriate test for getting off the Registry. However, with a simple tweak, it could shave off points to reflect that time in community offense-free.

I’m not an expert on the debates over Static-99 or Static-99R but is anyone even saying something about this?

I seem to recall in the Hanson research notes in some paper, he or someone else on his team of researchers said something similar to that the Static-99 is limited to only 10 years after the offense but the overall plan should take into account the number of years in the community reoffense-free, which the Static-99 does not. So it looks like the Canadian researchers want the number of years in the community offense-free to be considered, since they recommend it being used. The CASOMB, in their 2014 tiering proposal which got shot down or shut out, and in this 2017 proposal if it’s similar to the 2014 one, takes into account the number of years in the community offense-free. Hanson and team, and the CASOMB, I don’t think should be blamed for the bad state of affairs when it’s the California legislature that seem to be the hold-outs for reform as well as the vehicle to launch the constant legislative attacks on registrants.

Disagree. R. Karl Hanson is one of the four pseudo psychologist researchers that CREATED the Static 99 and 99R scam. The Static scam reduces registrants to a stupid number. I don’t see how we should afford any respect, let alone credibility, to Hanson — who continues to stand by such flawed “instruments” of pretended fortune telling. Don’t forget how many people are WRONGFULLY given the “high risk sex offender” designation by Hanson’s et al.’s junk science. If Hanson came up with anything good, it is the data that shows even “high-risk” registrants not reoffending after 17 years offense-free in the community. I say take the 17 year fact… and throw every other BS created by the phony PhD R. Karl Hanson. If I seem angry, it is because I am. The Static 99R is a complete and utter fraud!!

“Of that total, the highest re-offense rate is for transients who lack stable housing.”

Hope it’s hot enough for you down there in hell, Sharon Runner!

I know a lot of you have been saying that R. Karl Hanson is allegedly credible. But personally, I have to wonder whether these are one of those studies in which they manipulated statistics in a way to fit a certain conclusion (i.e. that the Static-99R is a valuable tool, when it’s not). What business does the Static’s own developer, Mr. R. Karl Hanson, have in conducting a study on his OWN “instrument” when the study is intended to be ostensibly unbiased. Does not seem like an unbiased study to me. Two of the four authors are with Kamala Harris’ CA DOJ. One author is with a university I have never heard of. And Hanson is doing an unbiased study on his own Frankenstein creation? I smell a 100 percent B.S. study.

I’m stuck on this part:

Overall, 45.1% (734/1,626) of offenders were arrested with any offense

WTF? If only 4.8% are re-arrested for crimes of a sexual nature, than what are 45% getting arrested for?

Is it violations of laws that are only against registrants?

If so, this goes to show how much different the laws are against sex offenders than the rest of the criminal population and should be against Due Process and Equal Protection.

Also, they claim they are thrilled with the accuracy of Static-99 yet many times the projected results have the Static-99 claiming double the number of recidivists than actually occur. I wouldn’t say Static-99 is accurate when it claims twice as many will re-offend than actually happens!

This makes sense if you look at it from their side. They already have serious offenders long term due to the legal parameters of their case. A low static-99 doesn’t affect how they are handled by the legal system. But a low level offender has a legal possibility of getting removed from bondage, therefore this report as defined can put them in a “high risk” category, thereby keeping them in the system and justifying all the laws already in place or proposed in the future. It’s a “trap door”, and as shown over and over, they know they hold the better hand, either by manipulating statistics for public misdirection, or just collusion among the different departments to help funding and job security. They are well aware of the hypocrisy of every action they take, but it is time we all accept this one little fact, THEY DON’T CARE!

my take overall:

1) in most categories the observed results showed a lower than expected recidivism rate.

2. The sample size is wholly inadequate, as the report mentions.

3. We’re talking about life -time sentences on a registry and they use only the most probable time in which someone would re-offend–if someone is a re-offender then a 1 to 5 year period is the most probable time in which they would do so. What about all those who are crime free well beyond 5 years??

4. While it appears the entire purpose of the study was to evaluate the static- 99R no study is being conducted to demonstrate whether a need for such a system to exists! The question is what are we protecting ourselves from?? Do you really send Angel watch notices on a group of people given this data??? And do you really need to destroy people’s lives given this type data??

5. The biggest take away from the report is in fact the low recidivism rate! Which therefore invalidates the need for such a tool!!
6. i wasn’t clear on whether going from -99 to -99R is significant and should age be factor. They didn’t conclude on that

That’s a good point on your number 4. The highest sexual recidivism rate for the highest scorers is near 6% after five years. That doesn’t seem like a high enough rate to justify putting some on lifetime registration, compared to someone from the group with the same offense, but a lower score, a group median rate of 4.3% rate and getting ten years.
What is more significant to me is the 43% overall recidivism rate, which is lower than those many other offense types, but still a significant problem to society, that the registry or the Static 99 doesn’t address. That problem is keeping ex convicts from commiting more crimes, and therefore filling the prisons and costing us all a lot more. Maybe more jobs, a better reintegration plan and social support may be a better use of resources, than his Bysantine system only those running it seem to understand, evolving around reducing an already low rate of sex crime recidivism (saving that elusive one child).

I never realized how educationally defunct California was until reading these posts. Where did your politicians get their educations from, the Acme university. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be comical. When will they realize a registry doesn’t prevent sex crimes, forensics like DNA does. It nearly guarantees detection and conviction. Only those with serious mental issues would risk losing their freedom again.

As for the rest any conviction results in isolation and limited opportunities for anything, including reoffenses. Again, a registry does nothing, a simple conviction website achieves this result.

Now if your limited intelligence elite in Cali can’t understand this, they can use these facts, they seem unable to determine on their own. You shouldn’t need a static 99 of any kind to make these facts known. Static=stupid things analysts theorize improve nothing, lol.

Carleton University? Is that Canada’s version of University of Phoenix, Devry, ITT named after the Fresh Prince of Bell Air character? LOL! Why is it when the government has to create “sex offender” recidivism studies based on “science,” they have to rely on the most unreputable academic institutions? There is a study by professors from the University of Southern California (USC), Keck School of Medicine, Duke School of Medicine, and the University of Washington that says the Static 99R “violates the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual.” See Alice in actuarial-land: through the looking glass self of changing Static-99 norms, J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. (2010). I trust professors from USC, Duke, and UW — which are first-rate research institutions with Division One football — over some hacks from the corrupt California Department of Justice and “Carleton University.”

Missing is the frequently cited Alliant University which appears to be a kind of feeder program to service America’s growing appetite for “forensic psychology”. Usually, the extent of federal monies flowing into their coffers from such things as veteran’s benefits offers a clue as to their intended market which, in this case, is to provide prisons, state mental hospitals, civil commitment programs, probation departments, sex offender treatment programs, and public schools a willing army of the deeply indoctrinated.

Hahaha at the reference to Alliant. There is also the Chicago School of Psychology (NOT to be confused with the prestigious University of Chicago), Argosy University, as well as the “Wright Institute.” You’ll see a lot of pseudo psychologists that come from these diploma mills who take great pride in “practicing” “forensic psychology.” It’s actually kind of a sad thing to see. Especially when their trade relies on dumb “risk” assessments such as the Static 99R. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans those “doctors” took in debt to buy into the Static 99R kool aid. LOL

Karl Hanson developed the static-99 and now issues a report concluding that data evaluated by Hanson et al validate Hanson’s instrument. Uninterested researchers should be evaluating the static-99’s validity instead of Hanson.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

What I can’t comprehend how the Static 99 can even be considered for determining Tier Levels if California ever went to a tiered registry. As the name says, the “test” remains static and the answers don’t change, even if the person has been crime free for 80 years. THe number of convictions, type of victim, prior offenses, ever lived with a lover, age of release will not change. So hypothetically, a 90 year old who is paralyzed now, in a wheelchair, living in an old folk’s home, will still be deemed high risk for re-offense based on a score that will never really change? Really? Where is the logic?

More voodoo science. I think Dr. Hanson’s greatest research is self-promotion and fleecing taxpayer money to perpetuate his flawed conclusions. He is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that was never there.

My guess is the reason Latino’s have the lowest reoffense rates is their relatively large familial support structure. This seems to support the notion that isolation is a bad thing for registrants.

Good point. I learned that in the construction field. They tend to find each other jobs, also. I wish registrants would learn from this. If we don’t have a family, let’s create surrogates. We tend to be too much lone wolves, but in reality wolves do better in a pack.

There is a group that comes to the Washington DC mall and they measure the Electricity in your body, then they try to sell you a book about stress. The static 99 should come with a swami hat and crystal ball.

This is a bogus study if I’ve ever seen one!

Static-99R is 99% pseudo science for sure.

The pretty looking charts make up for the predetermined agenda and statistical manipulation needed to “prove” the Static 99R scam is allegedly accurate. On the contrary: this study should be filed as “Exhibit 1,” showing how Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, and the California Sex Offender Management Board will go to far lengths as to create phony “scientific” evidence that suggests we should trust the Static 99/99R in all its fortune telling powers. BTW, these are the same jerks who also make us believe the polygraph is REALLY a “lie detector,” no?

Don’t forget to add Sharper Future (aka Pacific Forensic Psychology Associates Inc.) and the California Department of Corruption and Retribution (aka CDCR) to that list!

CA DOJ, CASOMB, CDCR, and SF all professional peddlers of various scams (static, poly, abel, etc.) that “prove” that all their “experts” are complete huckster scam artists.

shut them down!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x