ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: September 12 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

2020 ACSOL Conference – ONLINE October 10-11
More Info and Sign-Up

General News

How the Supreme Court Spread a False Statistic About Sex Offenders

When a false idea gains traction, spreading far and wide, it’s always interesting to try to trace it back to its source to figure out what caused it to catch on in the first place. The New York Times has an NY Times: Dubious Data Belies Supreme Court’s Stance on Repeat Sex Offenders, and it pertains to a common myth about sex offenders: that they have extremely high recidivism rates relative to other types of criminals. Full Article


NY Times: Dubious Data Belies Supreme Court’s Stance on Repeat Sex Offenders


Join the discussion

  1. jo

    and it continues to slowly unravel.

  2. T

    Like what Josef Goebbels had said “if you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will believe it to be the truth”, present the public through media about the growing dangers of sex offense, and that all registrants are at risk of committing future crimes, make the public believe it be true and be fearful enough that they would want more laws and ordinances to protect the public and protect children.

  3. Tired Of Hiding

    Nothing’s gonna change in America. It’s a country that has peaked and is in decline.

    Do not expect pesky facts to get the way. The game is over. We lost.

    • Tom

      Here’s the statistical joke for u all. You have been illegally and unconstitutional been subjected to a mental health law and diagnosis that is presumptively and predetermined to be applied to you no matter what. That’s all the soars really are, cause they are not registration laws, but is a mental health law that deprives you of all of your rights as a u.s. citizen.
      You don’t even get a trial or individual psychiatric evaluations or a right to use them. The court has no evidentiary standard, and works for the state, not as a judge, but as a mental health expert, lol. Statistically someone should have challenged the law under this basis since they get all of the benefits of a conditional release, and control over your mental health. How’s that for unlawful.
      Your dealing with some clever evil people. They don’t care how many or whose lives are ruined through this illegal mental health status they give by saying you are relativistic, dangerous, violent, and a threat to the public safety. You, that’s a mental health diagnosis if I’ve ever heard one. Some states use the exact words to civilly commit you or give you more time on supervised release.
      In simple terms you are under a conditional release and they don’t say you are and you are under there custody and control and supervision, management, and guardianship and they have control over your mental health status as well, this is what’s called illegal as hell.
      If you have a lawyer ask them to challenge it under this basis, it’s serious business.

  4. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    It was awkward — during oral argument — when North Carolina’s attorney, Robert Montgomery, said: “This court has recognized that they have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again.” The justices seemed to be holding back a bit. I was wondering whether they knew the consequences of their sloppy error (considering that John Roberts had argued Smith v. Doe — and Kennedy had cited the erroneous recidivism statistic). I eagerly anticipated for at least one Justice to question whether sex offenders truly recidivate at a high rate. [At 35:30 of the audio.] Unfortunately, that did not happen.

    For those of you that are interested, the following is a link that includes the Packingham oral argument (as well as real-time text and photographs that accompany who is speaking). I find the real-time text and photographs helpful in determining which justice is speaking at the specific time:

    (Refer to the left-hand side that says “Oral Argument – February 27, 2017.”)

    • While not addressed orally, it was in the briefs submitted....

      The rate was addressed in briefs submitted to the court if I recall correctly to make the error known….

      • James

        The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers filed a friend of the court brief (amicus curiae), citing multiple studies that showed that sex offenders had a notably low rate of recidivism. This brief can have benefit far beyond this case, by disabusing at least one Justice (Kennedy) of the notion that sex offenders have high rates of recidivism. It was significant in that this brief was filed not by an advocate for sex offenders (who would, obviously, have a vested interest), but by an organization of treatment and evaluation professionals who research this matter, whose only goal is reducing sex offenses!

      • Eric Knight

        Unfortunately, none of the justices responded to the state attorney’s high recidivism garbage with regard to the brief, which makes its presence as part of the court record less significant (at least for future citation and law preposition/implementation purposes).

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      Tobin’s Tools 2.0 Thank you kindly for the link.

      In regard to your statement:

      “I eagerly anticipated for at least one Justice to question whether sex offenders truly recidivate at a high rate. [At 35:30 of the audio.] Unfortunately, that did not happen.”

      What transpired is clearly examples of Profiles of Cowardice, of Old Kings who will not accept new knowledge who for the sack of Ego lead on to the Paths of Calamity.

      I Speak Truth

      As Yehovah Live, so should we

  5. Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

    In-Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,

    “Cited what seemed to be a good source for the statistic: “A Practitioner’s Guide to Treating the Incarcerated Male Sex Offender,” published in 1988 by the InJustice Department.

    The guide, a compendium of papers from outside experts, is 231 pages long, and it contains lots of statistics on sex offender recidivism rates. Many of them were in the single digits, some a little higher. Only One Source claimed an 80 percent rate, and the guide itself said that number might be Exaggerated [aka Hysteria].

    It’s clear that This Wicked & Evil Blind Seat (Judge) Justice Anthony M. Kennedy with malice of forethought under The Color of Irrevocable Authority has Twisted Justice & with a cheap Sleight of Hand Instituted A Counterfeit Justice, A Coliseum Justice for the Masses to consume and Not be Satisfied.

    He has formed divisions among fellow country men, A abomination to the Soul of The Most High Possessor of Heaven & Earth who formed light & created darkness:

    It is clearly documented in Proverbs 6:16 YLT

    Not to mention all the innocent family members & friendships he helped destroy!

    I speak Truth

    As Yehovah Lives, so should we

  6. New Person

    This is a bit off topic, but related to this article. It seems Adam Liptak is receiving a plethora of praise from the author of this article, Jesse Singal. So much of the information presented by Liptak was not his information, but information founded by someone else… Dr Ellman and Dr Ellman.

    Don’t get me wrong here, I’m happy to see this information being spread about, but all the hard work and research came from the Dr. Ellman and Ellman. I’ve read their well developed article several times. That article gave me a sliver of hope to hang onto when I was utterly without confidence in my situation. Okay, I still am without confidence, but a lil’ stronger.

    Anyhow, much appreciation to Doctors Ira and Tara Ellman for compiling all this information that many others have regurgitated and passed off as their own research.

    • Son of Liberty Child of Freedom

      New Person

      Thank you kindly for High Lighting the efforts of the 2 Dr Ellman’s, they should be given credit as it is Due to them.

      May The Most High be with them.

  7. Bob

    I heard the oral argument and it was ok. The Montgomery fellow seemed clueless and a little frustrated getting his point across. I found it a bit a amusing how he kept bringing up the high recidivism rate and pointing to the court how they were the ones that ruled that. lol. The court never responded. Although Sotomayor sort of did in an indiscreet way for just seconds(it seemed). Many times, it seemed like Montgomery was setting himself up and some of the justices layed the hammer on those set ups made by him. He pretty much made clear that this is only for sex offenders and nobody else, singling out a group of people in a discriminatory fashion. This didn’t sit well with a couple of the justices who voiced their opinion on that.

    Goldberg could of argued and even shown proof how Facebook is pretty much linked and integrated to many “all purpose websites” across the internet. You can’t blog or comment on pretty much 90% or so of websites today without a Facebook account. You take Facebook away from someone and you’re left with limited resources in social interaction and speech. Facebook does contain news, and all sorts of every day information and interaction. It corners every single market today.

    I hope that if they rule in our favor they use the words punitive and unconstitutional and mention the registry and resident restrictions somewhere in their opinions. Can only hope.

  8. C L A R K

    False information
    Is criminal especially when its relied by others. What is Enron.???
    An American citizen having to register is as corrupt sham as the figures Enron was feeding people.
    Feeding people corrupted sham figures:
    What’s the f’ing Difference.

  9. jo

    I still don’t understand why all the excitement when Facebook itself bans registered folks from using it’s services. I had my entire profile and years worth of friends and business profile wiped off the planet by Facebook staff when someone reported to them I was on the registry.

    • fb

      Facebook utilizes bio-metric software called “Deep Face” that exclusively targets people that are in the registry database. It’s supposedly more accurate than anything the CIA or FBI has and they have a “task force” of employees assigned to monitor and delete accounts they get facial hits on.

      Google “Facebook Deep face” if you don’t believe me.

      • Lake County

        That is why I’ve stated before to never post pictures of yourself on Facebook and don’t let your friends or family post your picture on Facebook. Facebook is the expert on facial recognition and other companies purchase this data from them.

      • Maureen GILBERT

        I can see a positive side to this technology. I am thinking of those hundreds of thousands of children (victims of Child Exploitation) that end up getting shared around the world by the dark empty people who torture, hurt, and sometimes dispose of them. So many time’s Law Enforcement Agencies cannot locate or identify who these victims are. This technology could really help. If your beautiful child went missing would it not be so much better if the law enforcement agencies could track her or him quickly. I know it is terrifying when someone you love goes missing. I believe all of us would favour any technology that would assist in locating someone quickly or solving a crime. And I am always in favour of knowing the movements of those who are a potential threat to harming others in anyway at all. I know we must make sure that these new systems are not abused, but come on fb, this technology must really be a huge worry to the criminal element in our society.

  10. Tired Of Hiding

    Why is anyone surprised that a group of out of touch OLD robe wearers elitists would spread lies and/or be totally ignorant of actual facts and yet feel so “superior” to everyone else that they make life altering rulings using lies that destroy the lives of millions and yet can sleep like babies at night knowing that they have a life time job?!?

    The “supreme” court sickens me to my very core. I have nothing but contempt for the court as it has nothing but contempt for me.


    • Tom

      It’s interesting that so many people talk about recidivism rates regarding these offenses, but none of you realize you’ve been illegally and unconstitutional been given mental health diagnosis and prognosis by being declared relativistic, dangerous, and violent, and a threat to the public safety.
      You probably weren’t even told that we’re you, lol. Plus your in custody since they own and control your mental health status. And you get supervised, managed, and guardianship, through the mental health determination. That by the way is automatic and mandatory. You do know there is no such thing as an automatic ally applied mental health status and condition, right? Lol
      For you Californians why don’t this just start challenging you sora through the custody part. I bet they don’t tell you your in there custody. And if you are in their custody as the mental health determination and requirement that you prove to them you shouldn’t be on it demonstrates, that would probably be enough to terminate you state soras altogether.
      Yup, the regulatory law thing has really confused yuhs, right? Don’t worry, there’s lots of time to fix it. Mental health laws are regulatory too, and you have to get treatment, and fair and impartial trials, and probable cause hearing, and individualized psychiatric exams and testimony and evidence so you can challenge the state mental health designations.
      I bet you didn’t get any of this procedural or substantive due process. They didn’t even tell you it was a mental health law and diagnosis. Well, now you know, it’s up to you guys to challenge it.

      • Timmr

        It has been a long time now that we haven’t been considered individual people, but agents like mercury, lead, arsenic, rodents, microbes what have you. We are property, what, 150 years after the 13th amendment declared the state can’t allow that, EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT OF A CRIME. You regulate dangerous agents by documenting their potential to cause harm and make laws to limit that danger. These SORAS are public health laws regulating the agent of servitude, kind of like zoning laws where it is determined where and how many cattle can be grazed on a plot of land. Or what distance a registrant can be from school property or a park. The SORA regulators haven’t even done that part right, but the regulators make assumptions based on baseless studies, based not on science but level of public fear.
        Who has proven we as a group are not individual people where have we lost the will to judge between right and wrong? What license professional would make such a blanket declaration, but the people in the sex offender treatment industry do just that, and provide such testimony to advisory boards like CASOMB. It is absurd.

  11. Not Really

    “Recidivism rates of sex offenders increase as
    followup periods lengthen and with the number of
    convictions. A set of studies that followed offenders
    at 5-year intervals up to 20 years found that
    rearrests for sex offending increased steadily from
    14 percent to 27 percent over that time. In addition,
    the 15-year rearrest rate for offenders who had a
    prior conviction for sex offending was nearly twice
    that of first-time offenders. However, offenders who
    were not rearrested for sex offending within the
    first 5 years were progressively less likely to sexually
    recidivate the longer they remained offense-free.”

Leave a Reply

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 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.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *