California Re-Offense Rates Revealed

“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’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!

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

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.

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.