ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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


Monthly Meetings | Recordings (3/20 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

Recidivism: The Great Lie of “Frightening and High”

[oncefallen.com]

Derek W. Logue of OnceFallen.com
January 15, 2018

“In so many instances these individuals should never ever be allowed out for a second chance, they’re ticking time bombs, its not a questions if they a re-offend, it’s a question of when they re-offend.” – Lauren Book, Current FL State Senator and victim industry advocate [1]

“There is a 90 percent likelihood of recidivism for sexual crimes against children. Ninety percent. That is the standard. That is their record. That is the likelihood. Ninety percent.” – Disgraced former Florida senator Mark Foley [2]

“It is a common misconception even today that those who commit crimes are arrogantly breaking the law and deriving a fiendish pleasure from getting away with it. Many people in discussing an offender will assume a hostility not too far removed from the original hostility of the person committing the crime. Thus the old idea of revenge is continued and the possibility of understanding the criminal is kept at a minimum.” — David Abrahamsen [3]

INTRODUCTION

Laws targeting people convicted of sexually-based offenses were justified primarily by a myth that “once a sex offender, always a sex offender,” and that a vast majority of those listed on the public registry will inevitably reoffend. Media personalities, politicians, and victim advocates will repeat this myth. Even the US Supreme Court has propagated this myth. The myth of high offense rates fuel draconian legislation.

What is recidivism? People demand an easy answer to a complex question. Anti-registry advocates recognize the importance of answering this question: “So it is important that these two issues related to re-offense rate that must be dealt with. The first one is; of the people that are on the registry, what is the percentage that are involved in new sexually related crimes, and the second question is, what is the percentage of the people on the registry that are involved in a new sexually related crime in comparison to the ordinary citizen who have never been convicted of a sexually related crime? If in either case, there is a high re-offense rate for people on the registry, than the justification for the law could exist, if not than the justification evaporates.” [4]

This paper is intended to cover this myth and the latest studies that debunk this most dangerous of myths.

Read more

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • 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.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • 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.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues 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.  
 
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It seems that people would rather give into all the lies and falsehoods about the “frightening and high” because it’s their comfort zone.

Confirmation bias is a powerful force to be reckoned with. That is largely on what is at work with regard to assertions made by those that write the draconian laws now on the books. This is a very good article with tons of information on factual studies which debunk the “frightening and high” narrative.
Great job

Cognitive dissonance along with herd thinking/mentality also!

“A leopard never changes his spots or a tiger never changes his stripes..”

It’s radicalized fear mongering rhetoric!!

I think one of the biggest reasons this myth (has since morphed into an outright lie) stays alive for the majority of the population is that people are too lazy to look and see if what they are being told is in fact true. They are so self absorbed with their own life that it’s more convenient for them if someone tells them what is going on so they don’t have to be bothered reading and searching/researching a subject. They think they are knowledgeable on certain subjects (like the parents that have a couple of kids and watch CNN and… Read more »

Almost forgot; excellent and comprehensive piece of work Derek. Great job!

Thomas Sowell said, “It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.”

Then there is, “Ignorantia juris non excusat,” Ignorance of the law excuses not. Saying “I didn’t know” is no excuse. You could have known, you just didn’t take the time to know.

I once read that 25% of Americans either have not read, or don’t understand the Constitution. Sadly, people who have come here from other countries and later became citizens know more about it than some Americans.

@Michael Unless you are an LEO/A because they can be ignorant of the law as SCOTUS has said so. Kid you not. Here are several examples. Grab your popcorn, but be careful as you eat and read or drink and read these. 2016: Court Rules Cops Don’t Need to Know the Laws they Enforce — THEIR Ignorance Can Be Used Against YOU http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-rules-cops-laws-enforce-ignorance/ Another Court Says Law Enforcement Officers Don’t Really Need To Know The Laws They’re Enforcing https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160601/07432834592/another-court-says-law-enforcement-officers-dont-really-need-to-know-laws-theyre-enforcing.shtml 2014: Supreme Court Says Ignorance Of The Law Is An Excuse — If You’re A Cop https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-says-ignorance-of-the-law-is-an-excuse-if-youre-a-cop-d8bdb99987f1/ 2015: Marshall Project: How the Supreme… Read more »

@Michael; “ignorance is a choice”

Great write up Derek.

Derek, you have just demonstrated how far sex offense “science” is behind creating really useful data. A standard should have been set years ago. By now they should have advanced to finding what factors increase recidivism in individuals and what policies work best to prevent sexual crimes both by former offenders but more importantly by new offenders. Isn’t that what this is all about? Prevention. But it is no surprise. It has to be demanded by the public and then funded, and then as with the CASOMB, the information has to be applied. The American public doesn’t want science, they… Read more »

This comprehensively researched, meticulously cited, excellently written paper needs to be disseminated to as many lawyers as possible, and submitted for peer review stature. Well done!

A copy given to Ira Mark Ellman and Tara Ellman for a peer review would be very helpful.

why not just have some voodoo doctor chuck some chicken bones to read the future ?

Grammatical error: Than… means to compare two or more items. Ex. “There are more apples than oranges.” Then… means something that occurs after a prior incident. Ex. “If xxx, then yyy.” *** Article wrote: If in either case, there is a high re-offense rate for people on the registry, than[sic] the justification for the law could exist, if not than[sic] the justification evaporates.” [4] *** The article and research work compiled it great. But the introduction makes me cringe, especially since the intro is only shown, followed by the link. Some people would probably stop seeing the grammatical error at… Read more »

only those that really don’t care about the stupid ass idea of a registry to begin with , now if they would have added a bunch of smut at the beginning everyone would have read it , and then turned their nose up at any positive findings , the negative force behind this oppressive thing we now call life works kind of like a black hole , if the truly cared anout people they would have been focused on real treatment many years ago , rather that punishment from the gitgo , and wasting resources on laws to further shame… Read more »

I’ve read some of the things that Derek has blogged about regarding the Static-99 “tests.” Like this blog article, Derek has a unique way of expressing some of the fallacies underlying the registry. Also, Derek definitely put much work into the footnotes and references.

Another great piece of work by Derek that I will be able to use…

17
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x
.