PA: This Vermont program might reduce sex offender recidivism. Could it work in Philly?

Counting down his last days in prison, Greg thought about his daughter, and the grandson he’d never met.

But his first days of freedom in Summer 2016 yielded more loss than gain. His fresh start was spoiled when Greg’s face appeared on the local television news. There were anticipatory town meetings, preceded by the police of his small Vermont town stepping up patrols, just for him. Within a couple months, Greg was asked to leave his stepfather’s house, before he ended up at a homeless shelter. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I liked this comment in the article:

“Reformers argue that these registries, in pushing former offenders further to the fringes, actually lead to less accountability and more desperate behavior. State registries might be perpetuating sex offenses more than they’re preventing them.”

But this statement from a Circle’s coordinator in North Carolina seems suspect, in that it mentions “recidivism” statistics that seem improbably high, based on credible current studies:

… says Drew Doll, Durham’s Circles coordinator. “The average recidivism rate for Durham is 55 to 60 percent. For those people who spend a year with us [in the Circles program] that rate is under 10 percent. It makes a huge difference.”

What is counting as evidence of recidivism? There is no way that the re-offense rate can be anywhere near those figures. It would be best to either explain that, or discuss re-offense rates, since that is what most people think of when they read or hear about recidivism.

This “55-60%” recidivism rate being lowered to “10%” stinks of a Psychology Today article that used the term “frightening and high” to sell another program in the past. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

The real problem is not the recidivism rate. We are 95ers. The problem is fear in the general population based on the BS that was preached in Plano, Texas and became scripture through the legislatures of this nation. That may be Circles value, reversing that dogma. No other reintegration program focuses on changing the attitude of the public. Of course to sell the program in this social environment, they have to focus on their success with the repeat offender.