If you read the following editorial as being sympathetic toward sex offenders, you are missing the point.
We are not being sympathetic. We simply want to state that it’s not always possible to legislate our way to safety. Full Article
Related posts
-
IL: Current policies funnel large number of… [people] …into one building. That needs to change
The state’s job is to balance the needs and rights of… …with those of all others.... -
NY: Sex offenders can be detained after sentences completed
New York’s top court upheld a law Monday that allows the state to keep sex offenders... -
NE: Homeowner Association Seeking Injunction Against Sex Offender Residency
A Beatrice homeowners association is seeking a judge’s order that would prevent a convicted sex offender...
I see this part a lot:
“A widely supported 2004 study cited as recently as 2015 by the U.S. Department of Justice states that the sexual recidivism estimates for all sex offenders in the study were 14 percent at five years, 20 percent at 10 years, and 24 percent at 15 years.”
I believe that’s the statistics the SMART office pushes to support their own existence, so I wish people would use a more complete and documented analysis. A more proper analysis would differentiate between types of offences because there is a huge difference between recidivism of minor non contact offences and the child rapist.
SMART report here:
https://www.smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec1/ch5_recidivism.html
In the SMART reports, they stick this little part off in some notes page and away from the main article: “Some studies that examine the recidivism of offenders on parole or probation include in their definition of recidivism imprisonment that results from a technical violation of the conditions of release or supervision.”.
I would love to see a study of how many convicted of sex crimes get tossed back in jail on technical violations and violations of laws written only against them VS every other criminal that does his time and is released. That may be the “shock the conscience” type of data we need to challenge the registry and the laws written just for us.
One study of data was used according to the article, but the data does not seem right according to what others have published, including here. It is irritating when they don’t publish their source document online link for others to review, but make people hunt and peck for it (I did not find it).
The overall point is valid, but you could think that anything is not worth one person in the end. That means we should preclude life in general because something is bound to happen to someone at the hands of someone else!
Does Los Angeles have residency restrictions. I’m not on anything.