ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (7/10 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

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: The Stage is Set

The stage is set. The Governor has signed the tiered registry bill into law, a law that opens a wide gap in the dam of California’s “Lifetime Registry for All”.  A dam that was in place for 70 years.  It is now our job to widen that gap.

The Tiered Registry will take effect in January 2021, about 3 ½ years from now.  While it is truly unfortunate that those who will benefit from the “new” tiered registry will have to wait so long, the lengthy gestation period for the “new” tiered registry could provide us with opportunities to address that registry through both legislation and litigation.

First, legislation could and should be pursued during the next legislative session (2019-2020) which improves the tiered registry by broadening its benefits, especially to those convicted of non-production child pornography (CP) offenses.  For there is no logical reason for, and no empirical evidence to support, the “new” tiered registry’s requirement for people convicted of non-production offenses to register for the rest of their lives.

There are additional problems with the “new” tiered registry that also need to be corrected such as the addition of people to the state’s Megan’s Law website due to a “high” score on the Static-99R at the time of their release.  The Static-99R is a controversial testing instrument that produces flawed results such as scoring all gay men under the age of 25 as high risk.  And even if the results of that testing instrument were considered valid, a score that is 10 years old or older is irrelevant because it does not reflect the results of post-conviction rehabilitation.

In addition, the “new” tiered registry requires a judge, when considering whether to approve a person’s petition for removal of the registry, to consider both pre- and post-conviction factors that are sure to result in prejudice against the petitioner.  For example, the judge must consider pre-conviction factors such as whether the victim was a stranger and post-conviction factors such as noncriminal behavior.  As written, this could mean that a judge must consider a ticket for jay walking and/or the late return of books to the public library.  These factors must be modified or removed.

Second, litigation could and should be pursued to challenge the need for, and value of, a public registry in California.  There are Constitutional issues, recent court decisions and empirical evidence to support such a challenge.

For example, the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution could be the basis for a challenge to why those convicted of a non-contact, non-violent offense such as possession of CP should be required to register for a lifetime similar to those convicted of multiple violent contact offenses against multiple children.

Another example is the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits governments from retroactively applying new laws that punish.  There is a growing number of court decisions, including Does v. Snyder in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which recognize that the requirement to register as well as its collateral consequences are punishment and therefore cannot be applied to individuals convicted decades ago.

Finally, there is empirical evidence to support the fact that public registries do not increase public safety.  In fact, there is even evidence that public registries may decrease public safety.   There is also empirical evidence to support the fact that the rate of re-offense for those convicted of a sex offense is very low especially when they have lived outside of jail or prison for 17 years or more without re-offending.

The stage is set.  There is much to do.  Please join us by Standing Up – Showing Up- Speaking Up at monthly meetings, annual conferences, legislative hearings and more.

— by Janice Bellucci

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
    1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
    2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
    3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
    4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
    5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
    6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
    7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
    8. 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.
    9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
    10. Please do not post in all Caps.
    11. 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.
    12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
    13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
    14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
    15. Please do not solicit funds
    16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
    17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
    18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email 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

I think the Static 99 test is both accurate and very fair! No test will accurately determine anyone’s risk level, yet some form of evaluation must be done! You gave one example ie: Gardner, but that’s only one person.

If you rate high, you must have an extensive history?

You should take an actual look at Static-99. It doesn’t sound like you have based on your comments. You in no way need to have an extensive history to be rated high.

An 18-34 year old person can easily score high without having so much as a traffic ticket before all this. +1 for being younger than 35, +1 for NOT having been in a romantic live-in relationship for 2+ years, +1 for the victim not being related to you, +1 for the victim being a stranger, +1 if the victim was male, +1 if you did NOT touch the victim. There you go. There’s 6 points right there, placing you automatically into tier 3.

Age is by far the largest factor as the older you get, that first score can actually go negative. A 65+ year old person actually starts off at a -3. So a grandfather who rapped his granddaughter for 10 years could actually score a negative score as his risk factor. He starts off at -3. Then he scores zero on everything else I outlined above.

Good points Alex. Also, just to note, a Static score is based off of “age at release.” Current age is not taken into account with regard to the Static-99R. Neither is offense-free years in the community. Current age and offense-free years are the most significant risk factors in determining whether one will reoffend. Yet the Static-99R scam does not have any of those two factors in its scoring system.

Judging from their usernames, “Sexercise” and “HotCock” might be trolling. I don’t know how anyone who is informed can defend the Static-99R. Even IF the Static-99R was accurate (which it is not), the tiered law would still be blatantly misusing the Static-99R because, according to the Coding Rules, a Static score is only valid for two years. Further, “risk” is halved after five-years that a person has been offense-free in the community. So even if someone is initially scored “high” risk fresh from incarceration, that person will probably not have “norms” that are comparative to the “high” risk category after he has been offense-free in the community for five-years.

So even if you overlook the literally hundreds of flaws to the Static-99R’s methodology, even the Static-99R’s very own Coding Rules specifically imply that using it to place people into Tier 3 is completely illegal (as legislation states that the state must comply with the “Coding Rules”).

Refer to page 13 of the newest Coding Rules:

“The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

That’s the really frustrating part. The legislature seems to love how easy Static-99 makes it for them to evaluate people without actually needing to evaluate the individual, but choose (and it is very much a choice) to ignore the other part of the exact same tool that says they’re doing it wrong.

Are you a cop? Or just an advocate for unconstitutional laws and junk science?

Not true I was convicted 37 yrs ago, I’ve had problems with drugs & alcohol, that sent me to prison in 2005, I’m also a father who was giving sole & physical custody of my daughter in 1991, and have done my best considering my resent circumstances( Megan’s Law) yet my score is in the high 6-7 range, I have a TRO/OTC BEING FILED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO ENJOIN THE GOVERMENT FROM USING THE static 99 score without a Daubert review. & or Frye test. We’ll see what happens,

That’s another problem with the Static 99R. Even if you are reconvicted of a (get this) NON-sex offense, you will get a new Static score that is guaranteed to be higher — no matter how old your original 290 offense is/was. But again, the Static’s Coding Rules say it’s no good after two years. Also, again according to the Coding Rules, when someone has been offense free for five years their risk is about half the original risk. But where is any of this reflected in practice and/or the tiered law? The flaws and limitations to the Static 99R are all very relevent and controlling to the circumstance, but yet blantantly ignored. Worse even, will the Static 99 ‘developers’ alter the Coding Rules and remove these caveats in the future (so as to ensure the relevancy of their bogus ‘test’)? Either way, good luck in your challenge EddieV. I hope you win. There are quite a few upset with the Static 99 line of tests. And the anger is very valid, considering how inappropriately the very limited test is being used.


The Static 99 Test seems very straightforward to me! There are clearly no ideal answers, but it’s really to the point! Who is more of a threat?

I.e.: married/kids, 45, family member victim?

I.e.: unmarried/no relationship, 24, stranger, male?

No argument! Now, if the person has been crime free for 10 or more years, it’s a different story!

Can you guys clarify prior sentencing dates? I imagine that means you have been arrested/convicted and have a date to be sentenced? If you have more than 3, you get 1 point? Makes total sense. Now, here is the 1,000,000 question? You guys keep complaining and complaining. What do you suggest? How else can the state determine who is a risk and who isn’t?

Um… actual, individualized assessment? In fact, most of us already have those yet they choose to ignore these in favor if this generic “test”. These individual tests are generally ordered by the judge prior to sentencing to determine how much of a risk the person actually is and how well they may do in treatment. A positive test can often mean the difference between being granted probation or sent to prison for years. But Static-99 doesn’t do this at all. There are people doing prison time for very severe crimes who can score less than zero on the Static-99, while someone who is granted probation can score very high on it.

I agree. I don’t understand why a psychologist approved by a judge, the probation officer, the DA and the defense attorney is not good enough to make that determination. Heck, I would trust a doctor who actually examined me and uses all the tools available rather than just jot down a generic checklist of 10 symptoms “pulled out ofva hat” to diagnose me. The sheriff’s janitor could do that. So why do we pay doctors, pray tell?
The law writers want the make the process as simple and mechanical as possible, probably so bureaucrats with no mental health education can diagnose a person without much effort and affect a life forever. The banality of evil.

+1 Tim Moore:

There are a dozen or so tools that a doctor can use in the context of RSOs. Why did the legislators, CASOMB, SARATSO, and the CA DOJ put so much weight on the Static-99R? As mentioned below, SARATSO also cites the LS/CMI and STABLE-2007/ACUTE-2007 as part of their assessments. The LS/CMI addresses violence in particular. The STABLE-2007/ACUTE-2007 purports to address “dynamic” factors (which you’d think would make more sense than merely addressing “static” factors).

What if an offender scores low on the LS/CMI, low on the STABLE-2007/ACUTE-2007, a doctor agrees that the person is low risk, yet he somehow scores “high” on the Static? Again, why does the Static-99R have the final say in condemning “a life forever?”

STATIC-99R: 12% of 23,965 Static-99R scored registrants in California are “high risk” according to CASOMB [2016 annual report].

Statistically, this implies 11,000 registrants could be put into Tier 3 by SARATSO high score.

In looking at the law and counting the instances in which “static” is used, I count 11. For SARATSO, there are 16. The word “dynamic” is used six times. The number “99” does not appear anywhere in the law, except to indicate the year 1998.

The qualifying SARATSO factors vary throughout the law. I have copied each instance but will not include them here. Some of them explicitly stipulate “static” and others also include “dynamic” or other test instruments which are said to comprise SARATSO. It does clearly indicate that these instruments are subject to future modifications and SARATSO appears, itself, to be a dynamic arsenal of tools.

The question that comes to mind in interpreting “SARATSO” in any of these instances is if SARATSO explicity refers to STATIC-99/R at all or if the tools comprising SARATSO can vary? Going to CASOMB’s website, they say this on their SARATSO page:

The term SARATSO refers to evidence-based, state-authorized risk assessment tools used for evaluating sex offenders.

State law established the SARATSO (State Authorized Risk Assessment Tools for Sex Offenders) Review Committee, to consider the selection of the risk assessment tools for California. Research shows that the most accurate way of predicting whether a sex offender will reoffend is by utilizing a validated risk assessment instrument.”

But what is that instrument? “Static-99” or “Static-99R” are not mentioned on this page.

So, and as others have speculated in the past, there seems to be no particular “instrument” to which SARATSO is tied, including STATIC-99/R which suggests that California (or perhaps CASOMB, in influencing the law) want to leave themselves a lot of room, either now or in the future, for stipulating what SARATSO can mean. That’s probably a good thing. It may indicate that CASOMB is hoping to “stretch” the opening through which Registrants might fall off the Registry without making it apparent to lawmakers or the public which, obviously, would have invited a lot of hysteria-mongering.

I don’t know how this law will shake-out in practice given its ambiguities. I don’t know how much of the power of interpretation is given to CASOMB and how much is given to the Counties. It’s clear that the Counties will have a lot to say about whether or not Registrants get to fall off but, to what extent do they have to adhere to current standards of SARATSO?

Now, I am reminded that there exists a SARATSO Committee which is separate from CASOMB ( They allude to several other test instruments which they apparently sanction and refer to in this sentence: “If you are a SARATSO-Certified scorer on the STABLE-2007/ACUTE-2007 or LS/CMI, or a SARATSO-Certified scorer on the Static-99R or JSORRAT-II for California probation, CDCR, or DSH, please contact SARATSO at to obtain the password. More detailed information about the risk instruments and information on submission of scores can be found on the Secure Login page for authorized users.”

My reaction is that this makes the application of the law even less knowable but might be to our (eventual) advantage. Then again, it might not.

David, take a look at 290(d)(3)(D) of the new law, which specifies Tier 3 classification when: “The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.” I quote this to point out the specific use of “static risk assessment,” so as not to be confused with SARATSO’s other ‘tools.’ I could be wrong, but my suspicions lie in 290(d)(3)(D) being the source of future harm for the few that end up in Tier 3, thanks only to a shady static ‘tool.’

Good post, Alex. Another question is why the tiered law is relying on only the Static-99R? If you look at the SARATSO website, they also mention that the SARATSO tool includes not only the Static-99R, but also LS/CMI. There is even a “dynamic” tool called STABLE-2007/ACUTE-2007.

There are also a number of other assessments, not mentioned by SARATSO, that might be more appropriate for differing circumstances.

What if someone scores low on the LS/CMI, but “high” on the Static? Both are “SARATSO tools.” But why does the Static have the sole authority to increase a penalty to Tier 3?

In America, people are punished for the crime that they do, NOT the crime that they MIGHT do. As said by someone else on this site, the notion of a ‘risk’ based registry SOUNDS good; but in practice, how do you predict human behavior into the future? It all seems very creepy, yes. And it’s really not unlike the book/movie, “Minority Report.” The Static-99R isn’t even at least half accurate for flagging the ‘high’ risk in the short-term. Not to mention, risk falls over time with regard to the ‘high’ risk in the mid and long-term. So it should be pretty clear to an educated mind, or someone who actually studies and looks at the data, or simply the coding rules, that the Static-99R — when used alone to label Tier 3 — is not being used properly. I’ve read a lot of the objective material on the Static-99R — the ones not co-authored by Karl Hanson — and even for SVP hearings, the so-called ‘tool’ is often questioned. Now it has morphed with the magic to categorize non-violent, even non-contact, offenders!!

Nice post, Watson. Your post brings me to another point. As it’s been said in past: When the Static-99R’s sample lumps both violent, non-violent, and non-contact crimes together — what exactly is it measuring? Is it measuring dangerousness? Or is the Static-99R measuring likelihood of recidivism? If it’s the latter, which is what the Static developers claim, then the state is saying that recidivism of violent rape or molestation is just as severe as recidivism of exhibitionism or voyeurism. Which is why this analysis, published in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, mentions that “[t]wo elements must be present to apply
an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome.” According to the professors from USC, Duke, and University of Washington: “This review demonstrates that both of these elements are lacking in the normative studies of the Static-99 and its revised version, the Static-99R.”

Read it here:

In the conclusion, the four doctors also state: “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.”

A 10 question test that “violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine” does not belong in the tiered registry bill.

“how do you predict human behavior into the future?”
Ask the courts, which keep saying civil commitment is fine. Ask the States that are running these camps.

AJ: Look at the context though. Civil commitment is for SVPs. That is to say, they have been deemed ‘VIOLENT’ by law. To reiterate the simple point I was trying to make: How did the Static-99R morph from only being used in SVP determination to categorizing even non-violent/non-contact offenders into Tier 3? Again, just saying, something doesn’t seem right.

Keep in mind that there are guys locked up in Coalinga whose sole reason for being adjudged “SVP” is that they had sex with someone under fourteen and whose crimes were without any actual violence or coercion.

This is the killer phrase that’s buried in the California SVP statute:

“6600.1. If the victim of an underlying offense that is specified in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 is a child under the age of 14, the offense shall constitute a “sexually violent offense” for purposes of Section 6600.
(Amended November 7, 2006, by initiative Proposition 83, Sec. 25.)”

This was added by Proposition 83 in 2006:,_California_Proposition_83_(2006)

Karen Franklin also weighed-in, at the time, saying this:

“Theoretically, then, the new law might allow lifetime commitment of a 16-year-old who had fondled a child on a single occasion.”


“Prior to last year’s passage of the Sexual Predator Punishment and Control Act (Proposition 83, or Jessica’s Law), civilly committed sex offenders were entitled to a jury trial every two years on the issue of whether they remained mentally disordered and dangerous. Now, commitments are for an indefinite period. ”

She also mentions the strikes held at CSH back then and the protest held in front of the facility (which I organized), none of which went anywhere. It’s worse now than it was then.

Watson, David, or anyone else:

Can someone educate me to how the Static-99R is used in the context of SVP determination? Is the Static-99R alone able to put someone into indefinite SVP determination? How is this possible, given the Coding Rules specify that risk “halves” after five-years offense free in the community?

(Never mind. I think I just answered myself in saying that those in SVP determination never get to prove that they can live ‘five-years offense free in the community.’)

So to reiterate: If a person has lived at least five-years offense free in the community, how is a high Static score alone able to keep them in Tier 3 (since their risk “halves” after the five years)?

No, by itself it is not enough since it makes no reference to the age of the vics and, unless actual physical force or violence is used, then they have to have one or more vics under 14 (which, alone, is considered to be “sexual violence”). I can tell you that, because Static-99R scores are one of the determining factors for SVP, there are more in Coalinga with boy ‘victims’ than there are those with girl ‘victims,’ since the Static-99R penalizes the former.

As for how the Static-99R is able to be used decades after the score’s “sell-by” date, in any application, that is because it works to the state’s advantage. They just say so.

David is right. I will add that there is an article from 2015, written by Peter Aldhous, that delves into the Static 99 used in the context of SVP. Keep in mind, the article only examines the Static’s use for SVPs — not in the context of how even more flawed the tiered law aims to make 6’s and higher register for life under Tier 3. (I had problems opening the article in Chrome, used another browser to open it.) “A short checklist called the Static-99 weighs facts about a sex offender’s past in order to predict the likelihood of future crimes. Many legal and scientific experts worry that the way the test is used — to make high-stakes decisions about an individual’s liberty — is critically flawed.” — LINK:

Umm, I was writing sardonically.

Being outside CA, I have no dog in the S99-R discussions or tier battles.

The Static-99R assumes that offenders with related victims are somehow less “risk.” But is this just not playing on the “stranger danger” hysteria? Personally, some might say that offenders who victimize people that they actually know, care about, and are flesh and blood, might be (but certainly not in all circumstances) more dangerous. But who am I to judge?

Anyway, Ronnie Mac, let’s look at your hypothetical scenario. In your example, you fixate on three factors: 1) Whether the offender has “lived with [a] lover;” 2) Age at release (remember, it’s at release… not current age); 3) Whether a victim is unrelated or stranger. Let’s call them “PERSON 1” and “PERSON 2:”

PERSON 1: “I.e.: married/kids, 45, family member victim?”

PERSON 2: “I.e.: unmarried/no relationship, 24, stranger, male?”

How about change it up a bit? What about if the Person 1 you mention was not remorseful? Where is that in the Static-99R? Are you saying then that Person 2 is somehow more of a “threat” than Person 1, even if Person 2 shows honest remorse? What about if Person 2 took steps to correct and learn from his behavior, perhaps enrolling in treatment? Where is remorse or treatment factored in the Static-99R score?

What, then, if Person 2 grows to be 29 years old and remains offense-free in the community for at least five years? How does the Static-99R score factor in the reduction of half his original risk as specified in the Coding Rules? How does the Static-99R score even factor CURRENT age and/or offense-free behavior in the community?

What’s strange is that lots of research, even “Dr.” Hanson’s own, states that risk reduces with older age and offense-free behavior? Yet do you not find it strange that the Static-99R score does not factor current age and/or offense-free behavior? The scores are fixed “at time of release” — which is what the tiered law also does. How can you say keeping Person 2 on Tier 3 is justified for the only reason of having a “high” Static score?

The example that you cite fixates on a flawed assumption of the Static-99R: That 10 simple “risk factors,” determined “at time of release,” can somehow predict human behavior. In that sense, the Static-99R has already spread misinformation: Because human behavior cannot be predicted by 10 simple risk factors.

(Also, just to mention, you don’t need to be a repeat offender to score “high.” Even first-time offenders, particularly [and perversely] the non-contact, can score “high” on the Static-99R.)

Concerned Registrant: I agree with almost everything you state; but I must caution you in your claim that people with a related victim is somehow more unworthy than someone who is a stranger (and viseversa. To do so would play into the Static-99R’s pseudo semantics. The true answer, I feel, is that it depends on the person. And that is why I believe that the Static-99R is indeed a ‘scam’ — because it ignores the individual in doing an INDIVIDUALIZED assessment. The Static-99R is a cheap, illusionary, shortcut. It reduces a person to a number. And the Static-99R also seems to divide and conquer, in its own way, that is reminiscent to the way the tiered bill/registry pushed some people I know from actively supporting ACSOL. What I am saying is that I feel we need to stand together against what is clearly right and wrong. It doesn’t serve a purpose to get carried away as to ‘who is a worse person because their victim was a relative’ and vise versa. But yeah, Static-99R is a scam for sure.

Most of us? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Some people where arrested 20 something years ago and have never received a Static 99 test! Good topic. What if you register (Janice) and they request you take one? What if a compliance officer comes to your home requesting this? I would imagine thousands of registered (include your mouse) citizens haven’t taken this test! So, the big question is, do we refuse (I wouldn’t score above 2/3 ) to take it or? Let’s here from someone intelligent (Not MikeR etc)! What do we do? (Guys, start thinking out of the box).

STATIC – 99R: 23,965 Cal registrants have a Static 99r score as of Apr 2016 according to CASOMB. Around 75,000 registrants may need one.

CASOMB in 2016 mentions 2 studies over a 5 year period, one showing a high 75% prediction rate and the other 82% (even across ethnic groups). Statistically significant. [4% sex-reoffend rate from 2009-15 for parolees; 6% for probationers.]

The Static-99R is likely to survive a court challenge, at least for now.

Not agreeing, just saying…

That is the problem with the “study” that you mention.

The above “study” only looks at the Static-99R for only five-years. The “study” does not examine the Static for any length over five-years — which is strange because after five years offense-free, offense rate halves according to the Coding Rules. And remember, it is the Coding Rules that must be followed (which, unfortunately, they can change at anytime).

Also note that Karl Hanson, a developer of the Static, is in conflict-of-interest in said “study.” Said “study” is also unpublished. Also, look at page 7 in how they define “recidivism:”

“Any recidivism included all crimes (sexual, violent, non-violent), as well as all technical offenses (e.g., breach of conditional release), regardless of whether they were sexually motivated.”

So based on how they defined “recidivism,” the Static-99R accuracy may very well be inflated.

Also, you note “high 75% prediction rate and the other 82%,” presumably WITHIN five-years? Even if that is true, that should be no surprise as most offenders do not re-offend. Especially if an offender has remained offense-free after five-years.

From skimming that report I wasn’t able to find the 82% number in the study but the 75% or .75 AUC value is not a 75% predictive accuracy. It means 75% of the time in that study, it was found that re-offenders had a high static score, where after they re-offended this was looked at. The STATIC authors say the predictive accuracy is good. They don’t claim it has a 75% predictive accuracy. The AUC does not take into account those who score high but did not re-offend as well as does not take into account those who score low and did re-offend. That’s why AUC does not mean the same thing as predictive accuracy. Its like what if the static was only giving a score of 6 if you were human. Then everyone scores a 6 in the study. The AUC would be 1.0 or 100%. 100 predictive accuracy? I think not as it would be ignoring those humans who did not re-offend who scored a 6 as everyone scores a 6. AUC maybe can be used as an after the fact calculation to red flag the process if the AUC is low. A high AUC does not mean a high predictive accuracy.

One thing to correct, the AUC does take into account low scoring offenders who re-offended ( I guess that number would be .25, if the AUC is .75), but does not, once again, take into account high scoring offenders who did not re-offend. That is why AUC is not the same as prediction rate. Because of false positives who score high but do not re-offend.

@RC: A “75% predictive” rate in a statistical study typically means that the n value = 1,500 registrants fell along the graph on page 33 of the CASOMB 2016 report 75% of time + or – 1.65 standard deviations. So, low risk was 75% likely low risk and high risk 75% likely high risk within a ~90% band.

If you are looking for a possible weakness to exploit, it’s the 4% parole vs 6% probation re-offence rate. That is counter model and unexplainable.

@RC: The 82% is from the CASOMB Feb 2015 report, pg 6. An alternative way to look at this determination (as the courts and legislature could) is that all registrants are for life. In 2021 this may be reduced if your Static 99r score was not well above average at time of release.

Statistically, these high correlation coefficients are nearing those used for FDA approval.

Try petitioning in 2021 with a score of 6+ if you don’t think it has merit. For now the registry is “regulatory not punitive and for life.” Limited regulatory relief with a criteria formed basis is going to be upheld, in my opinion.

Has anyone challenged the credibility of these statistics? Also, my husband and I talk about how the Static’s risk “halves” after 5 yrs. offense free (according to Coding Rules). Are we just going to ignore that part?

The 2015 report and the 2016 report is what you are referring as you only referenced the 2016 report. It looks like the data set for these studies are not available to independently validate these predictive rates of 75% or 82%. But even if it was available for independent verification, as Alex0 has already stated, the test is not being applied properly to the tiering. The test is only good for 5 years, which makes sense if you look at the questions. Past non-sex crimes and things like that are part of several of the questions. Should we hold someone accountable for littering 50 years ago in a sex crimes management context? The Static measures risk of recidivism for all crimes, which means even traffic crimes. This is outside of the context of the “reduction in sexual violence” selling point for the tiered registry. As someone else here has already stated, the Static is not worthless just being applied wrong.

The Static-99R might not even be valid for five years. My husband has pointed out to me that on page 13 of the Coding Rules, it specifically states that the so-called Static-99R “test” is only valid for only TWO (2) years. Two years! Not five (and definitely not 10).

Look at page 13:

“In some cases, evaluations may be for offenders who have had a substantial period at liberty in the community (since their release from the index sex offence; see definition and examples of “release” on pages 48) with opportunity to sexually reoffend, but have not done so. The longer an offender has been free of detected sexual offending since his release to the community from their index sex offence, the lower their risk of recidivism. Our research has found that, in general, for every five years the offender is in the community without a new sex offence, their risk for recidivism roughly halves (Hanson, Harris, Helmus, & Thornton, 2014). Consequently, we recommend that for offenders with two years or more sex offence free in the community since release from the index offence, the time they have been sex offence free in the community should be considered in the overall evaluation of risk. Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.”

@Ronnie Mac, No one is going to ask you to take the test as they do not need you to actually be present or answer any questions for the Static-99. All the information they need is in the court records. And it doesn’t matter how long ago your conviction was as all the information is static and based off of your initial conviction date/release. In fact, people who currently do not have a Static-99 for whatever reason, may actually be hurt by this more as per the bill those whom they cannot classify due to missing information (no Static-99) may be put into a TBD tier for up to 24 months. So that means if you would’ve otherwise qualified to petition to be off the registry on January 1st, 2021, may now have to wait until 2023.

Hopefully now you can see the problem many people have been talking about. The bill wants to use the Static-99 score at time of release. Thousands have been released decades ago. So a lot of information in the test may not be relevant anymore, such as your age and being in a live-in romantic relationship, but they’re going to go with 20-year-old information anyway and firmly say because you scored a 6+ based on 20-year-old information, you belong in Tier 3.

@Alexo: The question on “long term relationship of 2 years or more” is subjective not found in court records. Janice or Chance has said a Static – 99R if/when required would likely be $1,000 from a specified, approved psych provider.

That however, could be a $75 million dollar burden on non-scored registrants.

You’re right, the TBD Tier could be a big, 2 year problem for many.

It’s in mine and others court records as it was part of the presentencing report interview. Not sure if ow these reports are done was different years ago, but it would be a common question these days as it helps establish your stability within the community.

Don’t worry AlexO……Nobody is getting off the registry anyway. You’re trying to explain things to people who don’t understand what’s happening anyway. Save your strength. You’ll need it on 1-1-2021

Good grief…. your unfounded and hysterical rants are getting old.

And since you seem to be able to predict the future, maybe you can give me some stock tips. Yawn!

Yes Joe, I could give you some solid stock advice. But since you think everything I say is unfounded and hysterical, you wouldn’t listen anyway. And for the record: I hope to be 100% wrong with this particular prediction. I just know better than to put the blinders on and assume that it’s all going to be okay.

I would hope Janice and team are working on something to add to the bill that will address those who do not have a static 99 score so we don’t have to wait an additional 2 years to petition to get off.


So how would those of us who don’t have a Static99 score (and barely know what one is, in my case) go about getting one? Is this a requirement to qualify for removal under the Tier system?

Concerned, wake up! I remorsefully hate to share this, but most people don’t get caught the 1st time they break the law! How many times have you broke traffic laws before getting a ticket? I clearly know how many strangers did you affect with your flawed thinking before getting arrrested? Most people get treatment and feel remorse after getting arrested? You don’t sound remorseful! (Please see my instagram) I suggest you go back to counseling and tell them your rationalizing your actions! No test can truly determine who is and who isn’t a threat! Yet, I feel (check out my instagram 69) it’s both very well thought out and fair? I do feel it shouldn’t be used to consider someone where they are crime free for 10 years etc. I keep (69) hearing people moan and groan, yet NONE of you have a intelligent suggestion🙃. Wake up!

So I’m supposed to take advice from someone who can’t tell the difference between “your” and “you’re,” randomly puts the number “69” in his posts, compares traffic tickets to sex crimes, assumes that I’m not remorseful, and assumes that I wasn’t caught “the 1st time?” Like others, I’ve been offense-free for many years and would simply want to move on with my life.

Thanks for your input though. 🙂

Maybe he has Tourette Syndrome and randomly, uncontrollably blurts out “69!”

Your the best! Concerned, I’m not worthy! You rated a much higher score than me! You win

I will say that ‘concerned registrant’ does seem to have a higher score. A higher IQ score that is.


Thanks for your defense. However, it seems clear that Ronnie Mac is simply trolling for a reaction. That being said, and judging from their misuse of “your” and “you’re,” I’m going to go out on a limb and say that “Ronnie Mac” and “USA” might be the same person.

I agree. The syntax and tone of the writings are quite similar.


Watson, if you guys knew it all, why are you so concerned? Oh, Corcerned is on the registry because he was only concerned about himself? Hmmm
Now, I believe Alex stated you don’t need to be present for the Static 99? Really esq? I guess they know your relationship status? Stranger vs family member? Oh boy. You guys should fire Janice and take over. Your all too smart for all of us! I guess that’s why you got caught? False sense of ? Best wishes Static 99 pros. We are still waiting for an alternative or suggestions?

No one is claiming to “[know] it all.” We’re just stating the obvious. The obvious leads some of us to believe that the Static-99R will indeed — unnecessarily and unfairly — hurt a lot of people. In that sense, the Static-99R is indeed a scam.

Of course they know. How could the court not know your victims relationship to you?

And the relationship question is part of the presentencing report. Maybe the report had different questions 30 years ago, but it’s the norm these days.

I don’t speak for Janice, but I read here on this site that she, speaking for ACSOL, does have concerns about the fairness of Static 99, citing in particular that it biases people with male victim’s. She also IS working on alternatives to the present tiered law or at least advocating for some kind of change for the better between now and 2021. I don’t see anywhere evidence she simply wants us to cheerlead for the present law as written. Quite the contrary. I get she wants it improved. Have you read her posts?

AlexO, really great to hear! I’m glad your knowledgeable regarding the sentencing report! I guess we now know why you score so high with the Static 99 Test!

I.e.: Norm these days? That’s not something I would admit. I’m Concerned!

My husband is working the night shift tonight. He sent me this link through e-mail. It’s a judge’s order that invalidates the Static-99R because David Thornton, who is Karl Hanson’s partner, didn’t disclose data behind the Static-99R. If it’s not good enough to predict Sexually Violent Predators, why does the state think it’s good enough to classify the non-violent, non-contact, and the contact offenders who did not use force/coercion/true violence?

Anyway, my husband and I are just clueless and we talk about the Static-99R a lot because it has the potential to affect our lives in three years. Here is the judge’s order:

Thank you for that ma’am. I read the forum here from time-to-time and have read quite a few published sources that have invalidated the Static 99 line of tests. A few I remember off the top of my head are: a State of Virginia legislative study that pointed out the flaws and limitations to the Static 99R, a New York appeals court published opinion that struck down the Static 99, and the analysis by the USC and Duke University professors that disagree with the Static 99R. Someone should put together a compendium of all the material pointing out the 99R flaws, maybe even list out the obvious flaws to the Static line of test. Then anyone who decides to challenge it, whether Janice or National RSOL or ACLU or anyone individually, should absolutely feel free to use any or all the arguments we have collectively brought up. From all the anti Static 99 comments I’ve read on this site in the past one or two years, we have some pretty bright folks here.

I would like to see people who have had there convictions dismissed per 1203.4 automatically be granted registration relief after the alloted 10,20 year registration requirements. Also in similar state requirements in other states you do not need to petition the court to relieve you of the duty to register, the requirement just falls of according to the convicted crime. California in almost every case overcharges the indictment, as leverage to make you take a deal, the static 99 goes off of the charges not just the conviction. Its common to be charged with half a dozen felony only to end up with a misd. Battery charge.

That would be great @Mike! A lot of us would like to see that.

Part of my “deal” was that I wouldn’t have to register or give a DNA sample. 6 months later, it was register or go to jail! 3 years later, it was give a DNA sample or go to jail.

Of course back then, you just went in ONE time to register, and you were “done”, and no one would ever see it outside of Law Enforcement. (yeah, right!)

If I had had any idea what was to come, I would have risked going to jail, and fought tooth and nail! But that is all water under the Potomac Bridge now.

Is this normal practice to pass legislation without even knowing what that legislation actually is? Seems kind of counter to the entire legislative processes if you ask me. Lets see, here is a blank piece of paper with a title on it about lets just say a jaywalking bill for an example. Lets vote on it and have the gov sign it so that we can workout what we want to do about it in three years from now. Seems kind of non-democratic to me. Where are the public hearings addressing the language, where is the opportunity to oppose the law since you do not even know what the law states, where are the steps to legislation altogether, Legislative Process
Step 1- Introduction: …
Step 2- Committee Consideration: …
Step 3- Committee Action: …
Step 4- Subcommittee Review: …
Step 5- Mark Up: …
Step 6- Committee Action – Reporting a Bill: …
Step 7- Publication of Committee Report: …
Step 8- Scheduling Floor Action:
how can there be committee considerations without knowing the language, where is the subcommittee review of a blank piece of paper, well I do not have time right now to get more into but you get the point. A bill is signed into law and we do not even know what the bill is. Insane…….

@mike r:
Is this normal practice to pass legislation without even knowing what that legislation actually is?
Yes. Relying on staffers and/or groups like ALEC (I refuse to provide their URL) is pretty standard. Or one could always fall back on the (contextually stripped) quote from Rep. Pelosi (D-CA): “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” 😉

That’s a very good question, one that I hope gets resolved before 2021.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x