A New York Appeals court has rejected the notion that risk prediction under the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) should have a scientific basis. According to the July 2017 decision in People v. Curry, courts must not only adhere to a risk assessment instrument (RAI) that has been repeatedly exposed as pseudo-scientific humbug, they may not even consider a scientifically validated instrument such as the Static-99.
It wasn’t the first time. For the 20 years since SORA was enacted, courts have used the RAI to classify individuals after they’ve completed their sentences for a designated “sex offense.” The classifications purport to show the person’s likelihood of committing another sex offense in the future.
Persons adjudicated as level 2 or 3 are thought to be very dangerous indeed, and must register with law enforcement for the rest of their lives.
:strip_exif(true):strip_icc(true):no_upscale(true):quality(65)/d1vhqlrjc8h82r.cloudfront.net/10-14-2021/t_39c8eecbe07041d1b9b9742b750785a2_name_image.jpg)
I wonder if the lawyers for the sex offender were informed on how to obtain a favorable decision. Maybe it was a pseudo case. I think my lawyer was “controlled” by the state because he Lied to me the whole way & other red flags lead me to believe this. Disgusting.
The scary thing is that this is what the “tiered” registry will do to many when it is enacted in California! Except here in California, Static-99R is covered-up with the name “SARATSO:”
“(3) A tier three offender is subject to registration for life. A person is a tier three offender if any one of the following applies:
[…]
“(D) 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.”
Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB421
Unfortunately, no one has gone great lengths to argue the countless (and obvious) flaws to the Static-99R. No one except the few on this website.
Also, the Static-99R itself is a risk assessment instrument (RAI). Though the article claims the Static-99 to be “scientifically validated,” much of the validation “studies” for the 99 and 99R cite Karl Hanson and/or his developer cohorts to substantiate validation — which is a clear conflict-of-interest. Also, the validation ‘study’ that sells the Static/SARATSO as a viable tool for California, written by Canadian Seung C. Lee (Karl Hanson’s student), only examines the Static-99R for a five-year term. Independent researchers have repeatedly been denied access to the Static-99 and 99R data to see whether Hanson et al. have been honest in their methodology.