The following Sex Offender Recidivism Fact Based Research Statistics show that “facts are stubborn things”, refuting the shill, rants and other myths, such as the unsupported “frighteningly high recidivism”. We must read this and understand these laws hoping to protect kids are in reality destroying kids and their families. Full Article
Sex Offender Recidivism Fact Based Research Statistics
- ·May 16, 2018
- ·12 Comments
Tagged
RecidivismRelated Posts...
Kat’s Blog: We Will Not Be Silenced Anymore
August 16, 2019
How Social Media Shapes Our Identity
August 10, 2019
This is cool, I will use as many reports and facts as I can. I will have to verify everyone of these citations and supplement my discovery. I see already a few are gov docs that are irrefutable. Went to court today to set the schedule and it went great once again. I am not going to explain it all but take my word the AG wasn’t as friendly leaving the court as she was before going in. LMAO….Loved it…
@ Mike R,
That’s great news to hear! I saw this chart of all these low recidivism rates and it’s pretty difficult to refute.
Don’t forget to include the 21-year NJ study that concluded the registry hasn’t changed the recidivism rates (10-years prior the registry research and 10-years after the registry began).
New Person, would you post a link to that study? In don’t remember hearing of it, and I would like to put it in my files.
I am not sure if this is the article to which New Person refers, but it sounds like it is:
Final Report on Sex Offenders: Recidivism and Collateral Consequences, written under Grant #2009-IJ-CX-0203, dated September 30, 2011. The study was prepared for Marilyn Moses at the National Institute of Justice (810 Seventh St., NW, Washington, DC 20531) by Richard Tewksbury (Univ. of Louisville), Wesley G. Jennings (Univ. of South Florida) and Kristen Zgoba (NJ Dept. of Corrections).
This study examine the recidivism rates of two samples of sex offenders: those released prior to the SORN and those released under SORN in New Jersey.
“Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts schmacts.” – Homer Simpson
Yeah, the facts are what they are, but until the mainstream media gives them as much attention and hype as they do the myth that we’re all extremely dangerous at all times and in all circumstances, it doesn’t matter.
My wife knows how much I cant stand this country and if I had a viable chance at living somewhere else we’d go it. I’ve been out over 10 years, started a family and have always completed my registration on time, yet I’m still considered dangerous and liable to attack anyone on sight according to these laws for the rest of my life in most states. I’m in my 40s being punished for my very early 20s and before you know it, I’ll be 60 or 70 with these idiots claiming I’m dangerous due to an incident in my early 20s meanwhile I would have raised my kids and stayed crime free the whole time to include obtained am degree and worked a job. Is there any wonder why I cant stand the “land of the free….”?
The cited studies all focus on offenders who have been released from prison. Has any analysis been done on convictions that require registration but did not require custody? I’m curious what percentage of the million offenders are for minor crimes vs the image most have when conjuring “sex offender”?
We often say that the registry includes those convicted of peeing in the park, Romeo & Juliet, and crimes that don’t involve blatant sexual activity but do we have any sources on how many of us are in the registry?
But how come the Static 99R automatically adds 1 point for a stranger and 1 point for an unrelated offender? Could it be that “stranger danger” is blown out of proportion by cops, prosecutors, and politicians??
“These results are closely parallel to figures compiled by the US Department of Justice that show that 93% of child sex abuse is committed by a person whom the child knows. In 47% of the cases, the perpetrator is a member of the family. Only 7% of offenses are committed by strangers.”
Could someone forward this to the person part of the ‘class action lawsuit’ that posted here weeks ago? They should absolutely see this info.
From a moral standpoint, we should be on the side of facts, but In order to influence the dialogue and create change, you have to tell a better story.
Okay have done years of research and spent a lot of times writing articles about re-offense rates. The way this came across really upset me so, I thought I would leave a comment, nope you can’t do that so then I thought I would do the normal things that I do which is contact the author and the editor and send them actual facts. Guess what No way to contact them through the article. So I went to the contact page for the website which turns out to be great if I want to buy some water or fruit or sign up for their newsletters. But there is no contact person this is quite obviously a hack website and this information should be pulled from all advocate websites, we don’t need to promote the higher re-offense rates that they are professing, People on the registry have a re-offense rate of less than 1% in any given year. Studies that look at subgroups of people on the registry do a great disservice to all advocates. Everybody that is on the registry is affected by the laws thereby only studies that look at everybody on a registry rather it is state or national is the only way to evaluate the actual re-offense rates for the registry and in this study should only use reconviction rates. If you want accurate information about the re-offense rate go to SOSEN.org and look through the older articles on our front page for example http://sosen.org/blog/2017/09/16/what-is-a-valid-evaluation-or-study-of-recidivism.html or http://sosen.org/blog/2017/06/26/so-why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important-2.html