National U.S. Recidivism (Re-Offense) Rates for Criminal Offenses, 3 years After Release
1. Vehicle Thefts, 78.8%*
2. Selling stolen property, 77.4%*
3. Burglary, 74%*
4. Larceny, 74.6%*
5. Possessing stolen weapons, 70.2%*
6. Robbery, 70.2%*
7. Domestic Battery, 41%**
8. Drugs, 27%*
9. Rape 2.5%* / Sexual Assault or Rape 5.3%**
10. Murder 1.2%*
I went to the site to read more. It has a link to BJS 2002, but the link itself doesn’t take you directly to those stats. It’s 2005 plus years of info.
I guess this site compiled the list, but the reference can’t easily be founded by me. = /
Wish this list could be easily cited from a BJS page. Then we all can point to this page for reference.
Not all “sex offenders” have committed rape. Many of us have a non-contact/non-violent offense.
I see no recidivism rate for DRUNK DRIVING which is a real problem here in Wisconsin. The authorities have implemented a site like SOR posting photos of them online. BTW I make side cash driving folks to and from their watering hole of choice. It is a real business opportunity for SOs, if you don’t mind the hours….bar time. Tavern owners chip in too cause it is a service that puts butts in seats. Keep it cash tho!
Each of us need to share these articles with our reps, D.A.s, activists, and EVERY person in Florida. Let’s flood these people with facts, repost the articles on blogs, and create another narrative. The most nieve are the ones the politicians target, so fight fire with fire!
Honestly I think our reps don’t care about SO’s, I mean look at when the General Assembly votes on an SO law, it’s always for (Example), say 100 thumbs up to pass the law and there are 100 of them and you never see one thumbs down and it’s that way every single time an SO law is invented. It may very well make a change of some kind by contacting our rep, who knows, right? My offense was in no way by force or violent in nature, I was in a consensual relationship with someone, I’m tired of typing my situation because the right people aren’t listening or have earplugs in.
Why does everyone use these weak academia articles? The only ones that really matter are any report with “gov” in the url. At least that is my take, acedemia is always has questionable methodologies while gov docs are hard numbers. My opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, “any” educating or awareness sharing is great.
This post is really good though. We need exactly this post to remain at the top of the list forever or on a side link or something so that anyone with stats, including the citations for those stats, can post them until we have a list a mile long that anyone can use for both legal and educational purposes. That would be awesome.
Here is a great start to that list.
https://ufile.io/x0glo
So we need to somehow be able to have anyone add to the list.
I have noticed a difference on how other than white society views RSOs. Oddly as a white guy I have experienced more compassion from the black community at large than from my own demographic.
All,
In reality, any reputable source that is favorable to our cause is a good source, e.g. govt, academia, or industry. As someone who has seen the inside of the federal government, I know how the data is massaged (or manipulated if you prefer) to appear favorable for their cause and the opposition does the same with data that suits their cause. We have discussed the data massage here in-depth often to show one part of the story needed to be told, e.g much like a court case.
So find the best data the rises to the top and use it. The more data found that works for our cause, the merrier. You cannot really have too much if it is works for our favor.
All the data that is found should be shared with the other orgs, e.g. at a minimum NARSOL, WAR, SOSEN and ACSOL, so the word is spread. If they use it, great, if not, then too bad. However, there should be a consistent baseline of data to counter the bad narrative out there we know is used.
And yet even with one of the lowest recidivism rates when they take a plea or fail at trial they receive some of the harshest sentences from our criminal justice systems.
And yet even with one of the lowest recidivism rates when they are offered a plea or fail at trial they receive some of the harshest sentences. At least that is what happens in Orange County, CA.
Okay let me rephrase that. The Smith V Doe case is exactly my point. It was not a government report but was CDCR guide for a prison program which cited an article from academia and was presented by the solicitor general. My point was that in Court government reports from government websites or sources, i. e. gov in the URL is a sure bet it is government, will trump any academia and if the court in Smith would have been presented with a real government report such as, Patrick A. Langan et al., Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (2003) rate 2.2%.” [p. 1].
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorp94.pdf [visited on April 7, 2018] back then that stated the incredibly low recidivism rates in opposition of the solicitor general’s academic citation then the decision would have been much different in that case, the court would of took notice of the Gov report and rejected the academia. At least that is my thinking and just like in the CA Taylor case the court took judicial notice of gov reports as indisputable facts which it could never do with academia since the methodologies in the academic world can always be questionable whereas the hard numbers from gov docs and reports are unquestionable facts. Sure academia is great for probative value and is great as educational purposes but what i was getting at is that we need a section that devotes the entire thread to Government reports from sources such as every state’s department of corrections (DPC) or from gov entities that are statutorily tasked with collecting data from sources such as the DPC’s in every state that we can demand judicial notice of in courts. I truly believe that judicial notice is a very valuable tool that has not been used in these cases when it absolutely should be in order to eliminate any questions around recidivism rates and when challenging Smith.
look at this out of Taylor. just substitute the registry for the residential and see what a rational person must conclude.
In this case, however, we need not decide whether rational basis or heightened
strict scrutiny review should be invoked in scrutinizing petitioners‟ constitutional
challenges to section 3003.5(b). As we next explain, we are persuaded that blanket
enforcement of the mandatory residency restrictions of Jessica‟s Law, as applied to
registered sex offenders on parole in San Diego County, cannot survive even the more
deferential rational basis standard of constitutional review. Such enforcement has
imposed harsh and severe restrictions and disabilities on the affected parolees‟ liberty and
privacy rights, however limited, while producing conditions that hamper, rather than
foster, efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate these persons. Accordingly, it bears
no rational relationship to advancing the state‟s legitimate goal of protecting children
from sexual predators, and has infringed the affected parolees‟ basic constitutional right
to be free of official action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive.
In the footnote:
The rule that parolees retain constitutional protection against arbitrary and
oppressive official action has led to the conclusion that discretionary parole conditions
must be reasonable. (In re Stevens, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234; Terhune v.
Superior Court, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 874; see also People v. Reyes, supra, 19
Cal.4th at pp. 753-754 & cases cited.) Logic further suggests that, even with regard to a
mandatory condition imposed by law on a class of parolees, the agencies and officials
charged with implementing it cannot apply it to individual cases in a wholly arbitrary,
capricious, unjust, and oppressive manner.
Surely people that are not on paper deserve no less protection than parolees.
So check this out and see how it sounds:
Blanket enforcement of the mandatory requirements of California’s SORA, as applied to first time offense registered sex offenders such as Plaintiff who pose no more of a cognizable threat to public safety then that of the general population, cannot survive even the more deferential rational basis standard of constitutional review. Such requirements and enforcement has imposed harsh and severe restrictions and disabilities on Plaintiff’s liberty and privacy rights, while producing conditions that hamper, rather than foster, efforts to monitor, supervise, and rehabilitate him. Accordingly, SORA bears no rational relationship to advancing the state’s legitimate goal of protecting children from sexual predators when applied to first and single time offenders such as Plaintiff whom have not been determined to be sexual violent predators and has infringed Plaintiff’s basic constitutional right to be free of official action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive.
In Re Taylor 60 Cal. 4th 1019, 343 P.3d 867 (Cal. 2015) The Court noted “The rule that parolees retain constitutional protection against arbitrary and oppressive official action has led to the conclusion that discretionary parole conditions must be reasonable. (In re Stevens, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 1234; Terhune v. Superior Court, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 874; see also People v. Reyes, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 753-754 & cases cited.) Logic further suggests that, even with regard to a mandatory condition imposed by law on a class of parolees, the agencies and officials charged with implementing it cannot apply it to individual cases in a wholly arbitrary, capricious, unjust, and oppressive manner.” Id.
Surely Plaintiff, and other similarly situated individuals, that are no longer under state supervision deserve no less protection than parolees whom retain only limited constitutional protections.
This is what I am talking about TS. Be it academic or governmental. Preferably for me Gov. reports.
However, there should be a consistent baseline of data to counter the bad narrative out there we know is used.
This is also a very compelling statement that believe me I will exploit:
When considering a publicly accessible website Mugshots.com “This pay-for-removal scheme attempts to profit off of someone else’s humiliation,” said Attorney General Becerra. “Those who can’t afford to pay into this scheme to have their information removed pay the price when they look for a job, housing, or try to build relationships with others. This is exploitation, plain and simple.”