This is not good. I was wondering when this was going to happen. It seems as though court cases are going so very very slow. The 11th Circuit has held on to the McGuire case for months now. McGuire will be another Snyder case and should be a win in the 11th Circuit based on Snyder alone. Why these attorneys are holding on to this hate filled registry is beyond me. It’s like America is MAKING the law stick no matter how unconstitutional (against the law) it is. No other group of convicted felons are treated like we are. By law, this is not right! But “they won’t let us win”. Something is defiantly wrong the the United States.
Robin
Guest
April 7, 2018 7:05 am
“This ruling undermines the rights of victims and survivors of sex crimes, who must forever endure the trauma caused by horrific acts,”
How does it undermine their rights?
“Hunter says undoing the registry in one state compromises the integrity of the uniform registry system, and jeopardizes the ability of states to obtain federal funding.”
OOOOps there it is….$$$$$$$ the truth behind it all.
Brian
Guest
April 7, 2018 7:36 am
I don’t think it’s America my friend, I think it is people in positions they don’t deserve to be in to be passing these laws, it’s all about feel good effect, politicians don’t want to looses their seats so they pass whatever they want to, the high courts rule unconstitutional and these assholes go and redo a law that is the exact same as the law before they just call it something else, they need to be prosecuted, someone should fight the immunity laws they have in place and remove immunity so we can prosicute these assholes who keep doing this ILLEGALLY, let me say it again, ILLEGALLY!!!!!!
TS
Guest
April 7, 2018 7:38 am
FloriDUH leading the way again with what the doc states as the first SO registry in the nation (1937), pg 8 of the argument, Sec B, subsection 1.
@mike r – do you have just the statistic section of your filing that counters these claims easily retrievable for us to read again and possibly include the latest BJS and SMART data provided here?
Robin
Guest
April 7, 2018 8:19 am
Here we go again….I hope the attorneys are aware of the new DOJ statistics.
From the Amicus Brief
Third , numerous courts have recognized that sex offenders exhibit unusually high rates of recidivism. 1
Studies confirm that “compared to non -sex offenders, released sex offenders [are] more likely to be arrested for a sex crime.”
Kebodeaux , 570 U.S. at 396.
Sexual recidivism rates overall “are four times higher for sex offenders compared to non sex offenders.” Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison
in 1994, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003),
Ron
Guest
April 7, 2018 9:17 am
The next step:
I am surprised no politician has dones this yet, but I see it coming as court cases build.
I bet they enact laws that hinder or prevent cases filed by an RSO.
Ughhhhhh
Guest
April 7, 2018 9:24 am
It’s like one step forward, two step back.
AJ
Guest
April 7, 2018 9:43 am
“It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety.”
—–
What a load of garbage. How is anyone obstructed from getting this information? Last I checked, SCOTUS said registries are merely a compilation of already public data, already available at a courthouse. So all Chicken-Little-soccer-mom has to do is turn off Dr. Phil, slip on some yoga pants and Crocs, and go look in the public records. Not one bit of obstruction. Convenience perhaps, but convenience is not a right.
New Person
Guest
April 7, 2018 9:51 am
I find the coalition against Judge Matsch’s decision to be going beyond what the case was ruled upon.
From the article:
===
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said although the ruling involves only one Colorado case, it has wide-ranging implications for access to sex offender registries nationwide if upheld.
===
If this is truly the stance that AG Mike Hunter is standing upon, then he confusing an individual case decision with a class-action case decision. There really is no leg to stand upon as those are two different types of cases.
Then later in the article, AG Hunter was quoted with, “It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety. ” According to the same BJS reports, only 5.3% were re-arrested for a another sex offense, but only 3.5% were re-convicted. Is there truly a public threat when 96.5% of the registrant community does not recidivate? Again, registrants are the second lowest group of convicts that recidivate, murderers being the lowest group to recidivate.
Now, if you factor in the NJ 21-year research study about Megan’s Law’s application, then one will realize that the registry (Megan’s Law) did not affect the recidivism rate. The study conducted chronicled the recidivism rates 10 years before the implementation of Megan’s Law and 10 years after the implementation of Megan’s Law.
It is very important to have astute social scientists at your disposal for the defense so that you can refute the manipulation of the stats that is being pushed. Remember, no one substantiated the “80%, high and frightening recidivism rates” where were debunked to be false by research work by Dr.’s Ira and Tara Ellman.
BTW, am I the only person annoyed with so many defenses stating that the recidivism rates are higher because people are not reporting it? Is this not also true for all of the other crimes?
Robin
Guest
April 7, 2018 10:00 am
It was posted the AG intended and had filed with 10circuit. In some ways I am surprised that they accepted it, but then again the District Court was just one judge.
What will be great is if our side wins this one.
AJ
Guest
April 7, 2018 10:04 am
I’ve posted the AGs’ amicus online at https://uploadfiles.io/szqkc, and it should be available for 30 days. (I’ve stopped using gofile.io, as it will tries to infect visitors with a cryptomining JavaScript.) Note the new case number (17-1333), if you’re going to search for it on PACER.
Jason
Guest
April 7, 2018 10:27 am
I live every second of my life on this despicable registry. The politicians constantly change it to fuel the fire of their voters and they use it for a money scheme. I can say with Absolute Authority that the Honorable Richard Matsch’s decision was 100% percent accurate and the thought to change one iota of that ruling is TERRIBLE, DISGUSTING, ABHORRENT and EVERY other cuss word I can think of. I live this!!!!! I’ve lived it everyday for 15 horrible years. It is every single thing Judge Matsch said it is!!!
Jack
Guest
April 7, 2018 11:18 am
All right I just read the amicus brief and I think the only thing that’s going to convince the court of anything is the “long term” recidivism rate cited here.” A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual
criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism” however, that study’s from 1995, so I have no idea if it’s been discredited by now or not. Any idea on that Janice?
Jack
Guest
April 7, 2018 11:38 am
Page 17 of the brief says “52% reoffend within 25 years.” Can anybody figure out which of the studies they site says that figure? Or even if it’s still credible anymore?
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 12:13 pm
Every aspect of this brief is easily rebuttal lets just hope the attorney are up to the task. The Hanson study for one rebuffs their claims and everything they use is conclusory and anecdotal and academic research that is not evidence that the court can take judicial notice of and is reasonably questionable in their methodology whereas state and gov. reports are. The under-reporting is speculation, the efficacy is in serious question, the funding and acceptance is irrelevant, I can go on and on and I will in time as I digest this brief more intensely because this is very important to me and my case even though it is in a different district….
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 1:07 pm
Um how bout the states own go o source that has been presented and cited in the CA supreme court to the contrary of anything they state in Millard…. So if they want to continue to use non-governmental scientific studies and anecdotal speculation on under-reporting then we have to throw that right back in their face……
https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file398_12137.pdf
B. Recidivism Rates Vary Among Sex Offenders in Predictable Ways
Extensive research demonstrates that recidivism rates are not uniform across all sex
offenders. Rather, the risk of re-offending varies based on well-known factors and can be reliably
predicted by widely used risk assessment tools such as the Static-99, which classify offenders into
varying risk levels. See Dec. of R. Karl Hanson ¶¶ 2, 14-19. Indeed, outside of the context of its
sex offender registry, California uses these tools to distinguish between sex offenders who pose a
high risk to the public and those who do not. For example, California law mandates the use of the
Static-99 to determine which offenders require a high level of supervision and which do not. See
§ 290.04(b)(1); see also §§ 290.04-290.07, 1203e, 1203f, 3008; Hanson Dec. ¶ 18. The majority of
felony sex offenders sentenced to prison and released on parole in California after 2005 are
classified as posing a low or moderate-low risk of reoffending under Static-99 (scores 0-3). Abbot
Dec. ¶¶ 9-10. Less than 10% are classified as high risk. Id.
1
Research also contradicts the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of reoffending through their lifespan. Most sex offenders do not re-offend. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 19-25;
Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 13-15. The longer offenders remain offense-free in the community, the less likely
they are to re-offend sexually. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 7-13, 22, 26-38; Abbott Dec. ¶ 16. On average, the
likelihood of re-offending drops by 50% every five years that an offender remains in the
community without a new arrest for a sex offense. Hanson Dec. ¶ 27. Eventually, persons
convicted of sex offenses are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an
“out of the blue” sexual offence. See id. ¶¶ 28, 31-33. For example, offenders who are classified as
“low risk” pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a
sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 14
years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more
risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have
been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders
after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35. Ex-offenders who
remain free of any arrests following their release should present an even lower risk. See id. ¶ 39.
Importantly, post-release factors such as cooperation with supervision, treatment, can dramatically
reduce recidivism, and monitoring these factors can be highly predictive. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39-40;
Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 17-18.
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 1:19 pm
And this scientific gov report… This totally debunks their theory about cost efficiency or the efficacy of registries. This is just one gov. report out of a consensus among recent relevant unquestionable research which can reasonably be reliable for court review NOT academic or speculative and anecdotal assertions such as the way out speculation that there is under-reporting..Also as stated in my brief>>>
1. We now know, through multiple studies and lots of number crunching, that the absolute re-offense rate for people on the registry is as low as or less than 1% in any given year.
2. Therefore if there is under-reporting, then it also has to follow that particular logical progression that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.
3. Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending.
4. Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or misrepresentation of the facts and evidence.
Document Title: Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy:
Phase One was a 21-year (10 years prior and 10 years after implementation, and the year
of implementation) trend study of sex offenses in each of New Jersey’s counties and of the state
as a whole. In Phase Two, data on 550 sexual offenders released during the years 1990 to 2000
were collected, and outcomes of interest were analyzed. Finally, Phase Three collected
implementation and ongoing costs of administering Megan’s Law.
The following points highlight the major findings of the three phases of the study.
New Jersey, as a whole, has experienced a consistent downward trend of sexual offense
rates with a significant change in the trend in 1994.
In all but two counties, sexual offense rates were highest prior to 1994 and were lowest
after 1995.
County trends exhibit substantial variation and do not reflect the statewide trend,
suggesting that the statewide change point in 1994 is an artifact of aggregation.
In the offender release sample, there is a consistent downward trend in re-arrests,
reconvictions and re-incarcerations over time similar to that observed in the trend study,
except in 1995 when all measures spiked to a high for that period. This resulted in significant differences between cohorts (i.e., those released prior to and after Megan’s
Law was implemented).
Re-arrests for violent crime (whether sexual or not) also declined steadily over the same
period, resulting in a significant difference between cohorts (i.e., those released prior to
and after Megan’s Law was implemented).
Megan’s Law has no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest).
Megan’s Law showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses.
Megan’s Law has no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense
(still largely child molestation/incest).
Megan’s Law has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual
offenses.
Sentences received prior to Megan’s Law were nearly twice as long as those received
after Megan’s Law was passed, but time served was approximately the same.
Significantly fewer sexual offenders have been paroled after the implementation of
Megan’s Law than before (this is largely due to changes in sentencing).
Costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continue
to grow over time. Start up costs totaled $555,565 and current costs (in 2007) totaled
approximately 3.9 million dollars for the responding counties.
Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offenses, the growing
costs may not be justifiable.
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 1:20 pm
There we go in minutes their entire case goes out the window………..Fortunately the idioticccc AG’s cite Hanson!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can not refute Hanson !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Case closed about efficacy, $$$$$$$$, recidivism, and potential immediate or long term public safety……..
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 1:41 pm
I need the email of the Attorneys in Millard since I do not have their original complaint or briefs with the attorney’s emails……..??????????? AJ, Chris, anyone, post it if you find it or have it already……..
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 1:50 pm
Oh and of course lets not forget the latest coming out of:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Highlights:
*Among prisoners released for rape or sexual assault in
30 states in 2005, an estimated 5.6% were arrested for
rape or sexual assault within 5 years of release.
*Given the changes in the characteristics of the
U.S. prison population, an increase in the number of
states participating in the study, and improvements
made to the nation’s criminal history records since
the mid-1990s, direct comparisons of the recidivism
estimates from the study on prisoners released in
30 states in 2005 should not be compared to those from
the 1983 and 1994 BJS prisoner recidivism studies.
In addition, this study employed a 5-year follow-up
period, 2 years longer than found in the previous BJS
recidivism studies.
E
Guest
April 7, 2018 2:14 pm
This is all they’ve got, folks. And let’s admit it’s a strong read. The OK AG has layed it all out here… everything they can point to and throw at a case, including a full “explanation” of underreporting and that we should assume people who’s civil rights were restored (RCs off paper) are guilty until Proven innocent. Makes me sick.
This string of comments has some good links in it and should be shared with the attorney, Alison Ruttenberg. At the same time, if these arguments and issues can be overcome in a similarly compelling way as the AG wrote, maybe we can keep moving forward. The AG wrote this well and is pulling on emotions. May FACTS prevail.
Robin
Guest
April 7, 2018 2:21 pm
Could/Should we call this posturing by the AG’s.
The Millard case was over not getting relief when each of the plaintiffs did everything they were supposed to as required by the government and rules to only be denied their due relief. For the judge to rule they were still a risk to the public and anyone that posed a risk should be kept on the registry, was both out of line and vindictive, not to forget punitive at that point.
So The Federal district justice did the absolute correct thing in ruling the way he did and by awarding damages, it in turn ticked off the AG.
The AGs’ are more attempting to protect the registry in whole it seems, as the brief is written, and not appeal the decision that was made by the district court. Granted the win in district sets a precedent for other law suits, but would this not be considered procedural error in how they are basing the appeal?
The money is the issue long term. What I mean by that is the way the federal funding works is they take the total population of a state then they look at the numbers on the registry. Within that is a formula as to how much the state will get. Every state wants to keep as many on a registry as possible no matter how they have to do it.
At this time all states see case by case the chipping away at the registry, and the laws that govern the registry. Now it is the attitude of “protect the registry at all cost”.
With AG Hunter banding his little group together, shall we say forming a gang, so they can stand together as said gang as an intimidation tactic against the 10th Circuit, and any would be lawyers that may want to go up against them. I would call this posturing, yes?
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 2:52 pm
Check this out…LMFAO…The very fist academic report stated in the table of authorities which I am going to debunk one by one is debunked in the following quote….Amazing how they manipulate reports to their advantage. This is going to be great because I will be able to absolutely prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legislature intent is punishment………
Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric:
“Clearly, Megan’s Law supporters used rhetoric designed to make opposition to the law politically impossible. They employed a three-part rhetorical strategy that
advocates have used previously to push public support for other child protection
legislation: typification, statistical manipulation, and melodrama. During the late
1980s, for instance, advocates argued for new stranger child-abduction laws by
making these same three claims. First, citing particularly horrible, well-publicized
abductions-cases like the Jacob Wetterling incident-they argued that these
incidents were typical of the broader abduction problem1 6 Second, they grossly
exaggerated the extent of the crisis, pointing to the high rate of total child abductions (a number which consisted largely of parental kidnappings) as evidence of a massive stranger abduction crisis.” 7 Finally, they described their political struggle as a melodrama: a battle of good (child protectors) versus evil (child abusers).”‘ As a result of this effective rhetoric, activists successfully convinced the public that stranger child abduction was a scourge sweeping the nation.1 9″ pp 362-363. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=ilj [visited on April 7,2018].
mike r
Guest
April 7, 2018 3:24 pm
My god people wait until you see what I am preparing. Beyond a reasonable doubt I’m telling you……………..Been thru 5 reports so far and all have the same conclusions……..I hope all the attorneys out there are ready to have a list that is so powerful that it could be plausibly used in a statement of undisputed facts which could be used for a motion for summary judgment it will be that cut and dry………No matter what or how it is used it will be indisputable in any case……Man they made it to easy for ma too. All I have to do is cut and paste….LMAO again………
Wayne A. Logan, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: Past, Present and Future, 34 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 3 (2008
“One of the most striking features of the nation’s modern rush to embrace registration and notification is the utter disregard of empiricism. One would be hard-pressed to identify a public enterprise of similar national scope effectuated in utter disregard for its efficacy or impact.59 Yet at the same time, registration and notification laws have blanketed the nation precisely because of the perception, repeatedly parroted in legislative findings supporting the laws, that sex offenders recidivate at a far greater rate than other sub-populations.” Pp15 https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/criminal_and_civil_confinement_vol_34-3_logan_re_sex_offenders_past_present_and_future_2007.pdf [visited on April 7,2018].
Ugh the cost effective comment is ridiculous
This is not good. I was wondering when this was going to happen. It seems as though court cases are going so very very slow. The 11th Circuit has held on to the McGuire case for months now. McGuire will be another Snyder case and should be a win in the 11th Circuit based on Snyder alone. Why these attorneys are holding on to this hate filled registry is beyond me. It’s like America is MAKING the law stick no matter how unconstitutional (against the law) it is. No other group of convicted felons are treated like we are. By law, this is not right! But “they won’t let us win”. Something is defiantly wrong the the United States.
“This ruling undermines the rights of victims and survivors of sex crimes, who must forever endure the trauma caused by horrific acts,”
How does it undermine their rights?
“Hunter says undoing the registry in one state compromises the integrity of the uniform registry system, and jeopardizes the ability of states to obtain federal funding.”
OOOOps there it is….$$$$$$$ the truth behind it all.
I don’t think it’s America my friend, I think it is people in positions they don’t deserve to be in to be passing these laws, it’s all about feel good effect, politicians don’t want to looses their seats so they pass whatever they want to, the high courts rule unconstitutional and these assholes go and redo a law that is the exact same as the law before they just call it something else, they need to be prosecuted, someone should fight the immunity laws they have in place and remove immunity so we can prosicute these assholes who keep doing this ILLEGALLY, let me say it again, ILLEGALLY!!!!!!
FloriDUH leading the way again with what the doc states as the first SO registry in the nation (1937), pg 8 of the argument, Sec B, subsection 1.
@mike r – do you have just the statistic section of your filing that counters these claims easily retrievable for us to read again and possibly include the latest BJS and SMART data provided here?
Here we go again….I hope the attorneys are aware of the new DOJ statistics.
From the Amicus Brief
Third , numerous courts have recognized that sex offenders exhibit unusually high rates of recidivism. 1
Studies confirm that “compared to non -sex offenders, released sex offenders [are] more likely to be arrested for a sex crime.”
Kebodeaux , 570 U.S. at 396.
Sexual recidivism rates overall “are four times higher for sex offenders compared to non sex offenders.” Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison
in 1994, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003),
The next step:
I am surprised no politician has dones this yet, but I see it coming as court cases build.
I bet they enact laws that hinder or prevent cases filed by an RSO.
It’s like one step forward, two step back.
“It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety.”
—–
What a load of garbage. How is anyone obstructed from getting this information? Last I checked, SCOTUS said registries are merely a compilation of already public data, already available at a courthouse. So all Chicken-Little-soccer-mom has to do is turn off Dr. Phil, slip on some yoga pants and Crocs, and go look in the public records. Not one bit of obstruction. Convenience perhaps, but convenience is not a right.
I find the coalition against Judge Matsch’s decision to be going beyond what the case was ruled upon.
From the article:
===
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter said although the ruling involves only one Colorado case, it has wide-ranging implications for access to sex offender registries nationwide if upheld.
===
If this is truly the stance that AG Mike Hunter is standing upon, then he confusing an individual case decision with a class-action case decision. There really is no leg to stand upon as those are two different types of cases.
Then later in the article, AG Hunter was quoted with, “It also obstructs citizen access to public information on sex offenders in their communities and threatens public safety. ” According to the same BJS reports, only 5.3% were re-arrested for a another sex offense, but only 3.5% were re-convicted. Is there truly a public threat when 96.5% of the registrant community does not recidivate? Again, registrants are the second lowest group of convicts that recidivate, murderers being the lowest group to recidivate.
Now, if you factor in the NJ 21-year research study about Megan’s Law’s application, then one will realize that the registry (Megan’s Law) did not affect the recidivism rate. The study conducted chronicled the recidivism rates 10 years before the implementation of Megan’s Law and 10 years after the implementation of Megan’s Law.
It is very important to have astute social scientists at your disposal for the defense so that you can refute the manipulation of the stats that is being pushed. Remember, no one substantiated the “80%, high and frightening recidivism rates” where were debunked to be false by research work by Dr.’s Ira and Tara Ellman.
BTW, am I the only person annoyed with so many defenses stating that the recidivism rates are higher because people are not reporting it? Is this not also true for all of the other crimes?
It was posted the AG intended and had filed with 10circuit. In some ways I am surprised that they accepted it, but then again the District Court was just one judge.
What will be great is if our side wins this one.
I’ve posted the AGs’ amicus online at https://uploadfiles.io/szqkc, and it should be available for 30 days. (I’ve stopped using gofile.io, as it will tries to infect visitors with a cryptomining JavaScript.) Note the new case number (17-1333), if you’re going to search for it on PACER.
I live every second of my life on this despicable registry. The politicians constantly change it to fuel the fire of their voters and they use it for a money scheme. I can say with Absolute Authority that the Honorable Richard Matsch’s decision was 100% percent accurate and the thought to change one iota of that ruling is TERRIBLE, DISGUSTING, ABHORRENT and EVERY other cuss word I can think of. I live this!!!!! I’ve lived it everyday for 15 horrible years. It is every single thing Judge Matsch said it is!!!
All right I just read the amicus brief and I think the only thing that’s going to convince the court of anything is the “long term” recidivism rate cited here.” A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual
criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism” however, that study’s from 1995, so I have no idea if it’s been discredited by now or not. Any idea on that Janice?
Page 17 of the brief says “52% reoffend within 25 years.” Can anybody figure out which of the studies they site says that figure? Or even if it’s still credible anymore?
Every aspect of this brief is easily rebuttal lets just hope the attorney are up to the task. The Hanson study for one rebuffs their claims and everything they use is conclusory and anecdotal and academic research that is not evidence that the court can take judicial notice of and is reasonably questionable in their methodology whereas state and gov. reports are. The under-reporting is speculation, the efficacy is in serious question, the funding and acceptance is irrelevant, I can go on and on and I will in time as I digest this brief more intensely because this is very important to me and my case even though it is in a different district….
Um how bout the states own go o source that has been presented and cited in the CA supreme court to the contrary of anything they state in Millard…. So if they want to continue to use non-governmental scientific studies and anecdotal speculation on under-reporting then we have to throw that right back in their face……
https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/asset_upload_file398_12137.pdf
B. Recidivism Rates Vary Among Sex Offenders in Predictable Ways
Extensive research demonstrates that recidivism rates are not uniform across all sex
offenders. Rather, the risk of re-offending varies based on well-known factors and can be reliably
predicted by widely used risk assessment tools such as the Static-99, which classify offenders into
varying risk levels. See Dec. of R. Karl Hanson ¶¶ 2, 14-19. Indeed, outside of the context of its
sex offender registry, California uses these tools to distinguish between sex offenders who pose a
high risk to the public and those who do not. For example, California law mandates the use of the
Static-99 to determine which offenders require a high level of supervision and which do not. See
§ 290.04(b)(1); see also §§ 290.04-290.07, 1203e, 1203f, 3008; Hanson Dec. ¶ 18. The majority of
felony sex offenders sentenced to prison and released on parole in California after 2005 are
classified as posing a low or moderate-low risk of reoffending under Static-99 (scores 0-3). Abbot
Dec. ¶¶ 9-10. Less than 10% are classified as high risk. Id.
1
Research also contradicts the popular notion that sexual offenders remain at risk of reoffending through their lifespan. Most sex offenders do not re-offend. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 19-25;
Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 13-15. The longer offenders remain offense-free in the community, the less likely
they are to re-offend sexually. Hanson Dec. ¶¶ 7-13, 22, 26-38; Abbott Dec. ¶ 16. On average, the
likelihood of re-offending drops by 50% every five years that an offender remains in the
community without a new arrest for a sex offense. Hanson Dec. ¶ 27. Eventually, persons
convicted of sex offenses are less likely to re-offend than a non-sexual offender is to commit an
“out of the blue” sexual offence. See id. ¶¶ 28, 31-33. For example, offenders who are classified as
“low risk” pose no more risk of recidivism than do individuals who have never been arrested for a
sex-related offense but have been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶ 30. After 10 to 14
years in the community without committing a sex offense, medium-risk offenders pose no more
risk of recidivism than individuals who have never been arrested for a sex-related offense but have
been arrested for some other crimes. See id. ¶¶ 30, 34. The same is true for high-risk offenders
after 17 years without a new arrest for a sex-related offense. See id. ¶ 35. Ex-offenders who
remain free of any arrests following their release should present an even lower risk. See id. ¶ 39.
Importantly, post-release factors such as cooperation with supervision, treatment, can dramatically
reduce recidivism, and monitoring these factors can be highly predictive. See id. ¶¶ 23, 39-40;
Abbott Dec. ¶¶ 17-18.
And this scientific gov report… This totally debunks their theory about cost efficiency or the efficacy of registries. This is just one gov. report out of a consensus among recent relevant unquestionable research which can reasonably be reliable for court review NOT academic or speculative and anecdotal assertions such as the way out speculation that there is under-reporting..Also as stated in my brief>>>
1. We now know, through multiple studies and lots of number crunching, that the absolute re-offense rate for people on the registry is as low as or less than 1% in any given year.
2. Therefore if there is under-reporting, then it also has to follow that particular logical progression that is if there is a percentage of under-reporting then 99% of those unreported crimes are not done by people on the registry.
3. Here is the primary issue that should be pointed out, nowhere in the under-reporting study, or for that matter any accredited study, was there any proof that any portion of the under-reporting was due to people on the registry reoffending.
4. Therefore attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or misrepresentation of the facts and evidence.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf
Document Title: Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary Efficacy:
Phase One was a 21-year (10 years prior and 10 years after implementation, and the year
of implementation) trend study of sex offenses in each of New Jersey’s counties and of the state
as a whole. In Phase Two, data on 550 sexual offenders released during the years 1990 to 2000
were collected, and outcomes of interest were analyzed. Finally, Phase Three collected
implementation and ongoing costs of administering Megan’s Law.
The following points highlight the major findings of the three phases of the study.
New Jersey, as a whole, has experienced a consistent downward trend of sexual offense
rates with a significant change in the trend in 1994.
In all but two counties, sexual offense rates were highest prior to 1994 and were lowest
after 1995.
County trends exhibit substantial variation and do not reflect the statewide trend,
suggesting that the statewide change point in 1994 is an artifact of aggregation.
In the offender release sample, there is a consistent downward trend in re-arrests,
reconvictions and re-incarcerations over time similar to that observed in the trend study,
except in 1995 when all measures spiked to a high for that period. This resulted in significant differences between cohorts (i.e., those released prior to and after Megan’s
Law was implemented).
Re-arrests for violent crime (whether sexual or not) also declined steadily over the same
period, resulting in a significant difference between cohorts (i.e., those released prior to
and after Megan’s Law was implemented).
Megan’s Law has no effect on community tenure (i.e., time to first re-arrest).
Megan’s Law showed no demonstrable effect in reducing sexual re-offenses.
Megan’s Law has no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first time sexual offense
(still largely child molestation/incest).
Megan’s Law has no effect on reducing the number of victims involved in sexual
offenses.
Sentences received prior to Megan’s Law were nearly twice as long as those received
after Megan’s Law was passed, but time served was approximately the same.
Significantly fewer sexual offenders have been paroled after the implementation of
Megan’s Law than before (this is largely due to changes in sentencing).
Costs associated with the initial implementation as well as ongoing expenditures continue
to grow over time. Start up costs totaled $555,565 and current costs (in 2007) totaled
approximately 3.9 million dollars for the responding counties.
Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offenses, the growing
costs may not be justifiable.
There we go in minutes their entire case goes out the window………..Fortunately the idioticccc AG’s cite Hanson!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can not refute Hanson !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Case closed about efficacy, $$$$$$$$, recidivism, and potential immediate or long term public safety……..
I need the email of the Attorneys in Millard since I do not have their original complaint or briefs with the attorney’s emails……..??????????? AJ, Chris, anyone, post it if you find it or have it already……..
Oh and of course lets not forget the latest coming out of:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510_st.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Highlights:
*Among prisoners released for rape or sexual assault in
30 states in 2005, an estimated 5.6% were arrested for
rape or sexual assault within 5 years of release.
*Given the changes in the characteristics of the
U.S. prison population, an increase in the number of
states participating in the study, and improvements
made to the nation’s criminal history records since
the mid-1990s, direct comparisons of the recidivism
estimates from the study on prisoners released in
30 states in 2005 should not be compared to those from
the 1983 and 1994 BJS prisoner recidivism studies.
In addition, this study employed a 5-year follow-up
period, 2 years longer than found in the previous BJS
recidivism studies.
This is all they’ve got, folks. And let’s admit it’s a strong read. The OK AG has layed it all out here… everything they can point to and throw at a case, including a full “explanation” of underreporting and that we should assume people who’s civil rights were restored (RCs off paper) are guilty until Proven innocent. Makes me sick.
This string of comments has some good links in it and should be shared with the attorney, Alison Ruttenberg. At the same time, if these arguments and issues can be overcome in a similarly compelling way as the AG wrote, maybe we can keep moving forward. The AG wrote this well and is pulling on emotions. May FACTS prevail.
Could/Should we call this posturing by the AG’s.
The Millard case was over not getting relief when each of the plaintiffs did everything they were supposed to as required by the government and rules to only be denied their due relief. For the judge to rule they were still a risk to the public and anyone that posed a risk should be kept on the registry, was both out of line and vindictive, not to forget punitive at that point.
So The Federal district justice did the absolute correct thing in ruling the way he did and by awarding damages, it in turn ticked off the AG.
The AGs’ are more attempting to protect the registry in whole it seems, as the brief is written, and not appeal the decision that was made by the district court. Granted the win in district sets a precedent for other law suits, but would this not be considered procedural error in how they are basing the appeal?
The money is the issue long term. What I mean by that is the way the federal funding works is they take the total population of a state then they look at the numbers on the registry. Within that is a formula as to how much the state will get. Every state wants to keep as many on a registry as possible no matter how they have to do it.
At this time all states see case by case the chipping away at the registry, and the laws that govern the registry. Now it is the attitude of “protect the registry at all cost”.
With AG Hunter banding his little group together, shall we say forming a gang, so they can stand together as said gang as an intimidation tactic against the 10th Circuit, and any would be lawyers that may want to go up against them. I would call this posturing, yes?
Check this out…LMFAO…The very fist academic report stated in the table of authorities which I am going to debunk one by one is debunked in the following quote….Amazing how they manipulate reports to their advantage. This is going to be great because I will be able to absolutely prove beyond reasonable doubt that the legislature intent is punishment………
Making the Case for Megan’s Law: A Study in Legislative Rhetoric:
“Clearly, Megan’s Law supporters used rhetoric designed to make opposition to the law politically impossible. They employed a three-part rhetorical strategy that
advocates have used previously to push public support for other child protection
legislation: typification, statistical manipulation, and melodrama. During the late
1980s, for instance, advocates argued for new stranger child-abduction laws by
making these same three claims. First, citing particularly horrible, well-publicized
abductions-cases like the Jacob Wetterling incident-they argued that these
incidents were typical of the broader abduction problem1 6 Second, they grossly
exaggerated the extent of the crisis, pointing to the high rate of total child abductions (a number which consisted largely of parental kidnappings) as evidence of a massive stranger abduction crisis.” 7 Finally, they described their political struggle as a melodrama: a battle of good (child protectors) versus evil (child abusers).”‘ As a result of this effective rhetoric, activists successfully convinced the public that stranger child abduction was a scourge sweeping the nation.1 9″ pp 362-363. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1977&context=ilj [visited on April 7,2018].
My god people wait until you see what I am preparing. Beyond a reasonable doubt I’m telling you……………..Been thru 5 reports so far and all have the same conclusions……..I hope all the attorneys out there are ready to have a list that is so powerful that it could be plausibly used in a statement of undisputed facts which could be used for a motion for summary judgment it will be that cut and dry………No matter what or how it is used it will be indisputable in any case……Man they made it to easy for ma too. All I have to do is cut and paste….LMAO again………
Wayne A. Logan, Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification: Past, Present and Future, 34 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 3 (2008
“One of the most striking features of the nation’s modern rush to embrace registration and notification is the utter disregard of empiricism. One would be hard-pressed to identify a public enterprise of similar national scope effectuated in utter disregard for its efficacy or impact.59 Yet at the same time, registration and notification laws have blanketed the nation precisely because of the perception, repeatedly parroted in legislative findings supporting the laws, that sex offenders recidivate at a far greater rate than other sub-populations.” Pp15 https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/criminal_and_civil_confinement_vol_34-3_logan_re_sex_offenders_past_present_and_future_2007.pdf [visited on April 7,2018].