Vincent Carroll argues in The Denver Post that Colorado ought to make its sex offender registry more meaningful to the public by assessing actual risk and removing some names. Full Opinion Piece
how to make the registry more meaningful
- ·November 6, 2017
- ·7 Comments
Related Posts...
The Inequity of Sex Offender Registries
July 17, 2019
When autistic people commit sexual crimes
July 17, 2019
General Comments July 2019
July 11, 2019
Ok, to borrow what someone else said on here a while back: “assessing actual risk” sounds great in theory. But in reality, how do you ‘assess actual risk?’ If they are thinking about using the flawed Static-99R, then that is *not* at all a better alternative.
I think once you finish probation or parole, that should be it. No more registration. Or maybe fix the registration scheme at 10 years maximum. But if they are going to allow registration schemes to continue, don’t forget to call it “punishment” too (because we all know it is).
When it comes to this “risk assessment” bullshi*: Forget about it!
There should never be any Registration. It is truly idiotic social policy that protects no one and yet causes extreme harm to everyone.
There is no credible scientific method for assessing sex offender risk. In fact, there is little-to-no “science” standing behind the treatment industry, in general. There may be professionals within it who can make more intelligent guesses than others (only because they’re more intelligent and experienced) and who can also help some individuals to not re-offend, most likely through reasoning and an appeal to consciousness, but the science, such as it is, is not credible. Cheap gimmicks like the Static-99R should be seen as on a par with dowsing rods for locating water. They provide the appearance of scientific procedure and painstaking analysis to a customer base (government and the public) who need to believe that such a regimen exists. I’m skeptical that significant and necessary reforms can happen in the absence of a serious conversation about the state-of-the-art in risk assessment and treatment. I think that we should stop asking for “accurate” risk-assessment as an appeal to their reason.
Let me take back part of that: “I think that we should stop asking for “accurate” risk-assessment as an appeal to their reason.”
The utility of asking for accurate assessments is a good tactic insofar as, were it to be required statutorially in IML, the Registry, etc. it would completely f*** them up. They would have to build an enormous and expensive apparatus and we could challenge its credibility. So I take that statement back. It actually is a good thing to demand accurate assessments even if we realize that they don’t exist. It’s placing the onus on the government.
WOW! Amazing op-ed! I agree 100%.
NO registry period. If you are on paper, you are on paper and have to note it. If you are off paper, you are off paper and should be left to live your life. If someone is that much of a threat, then there are ways to deal with them. No registry duration is going to be enough for some people whereas those who want to reintegrate back into society are prevented with doing so by long durations. Those states who are creating new registries are doing a disservice to their citizens and those citizens will find out how bad the registry is they are on.
I read this article when it was first published and did not note then, but do note now that CO polygraph dude on the SOMB is similar to CA’s situation with their assessment dude on the SOMB…an exact replica for a conflict of interest.
“You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,”