CA: Assessing the Real Risk of Sexually Violent Predators: Doctor Padilla’s Dangerous Data [Paper]

[ – 7/16/18]


This Article uses internal memoranda and emails to describe the efforts of the California Department of Mental Health to suppress a serious and well-designed study that showed just 6.5% of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility. The Article begins by historically situating sexually violent predator laws and then explains the constitutionally critical role that prospective sexual dangerousness plays in justifying these laws. The Article next explains how the U.S. Supreme Court and the highest state courts have allowed these laws to exist without requiring any proof of actual danger. It then describes the California study and reconciles its findings with those of a well-known Washington study by explaining the preventive effects of increasing age. Finally, the Article explains how these results undermine the justification for indeterminate lifetime commitment of sex offenders

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Cool, cool. But does this pass the all mighty “Rational” Review Bases?

How our government, in the 21st century where we’re about to land on Mars, still passes laws solely based on “it sounds about right”, is beyond me. We might as well test for “pedo” gene by weighing a duck against the person.

The US Government should be prosecuted and then forced to payout to the hundreds of thousands of families that have been VICTIMS of the illegal scheme known as the Registry. At the very least.

This is further evidence that Karl Hanson, as well as his “static” scams, cannot be trusted. For many years, SVP’s have been indefinitely held… often under the rationale given by the “statistics” of the “evidence-based” and “empirical” Static-99. As the old saying goes: “Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.”

Even for UNTREATED people given the “SVP” designation, their actual recidivism is at 6.5% within 4.8 years. Yet the Static-99 estimated these same people to be 37% to 38%. In other words, this is an egregious overestimation of over 500%. Again, the Static-99 exaggerated recidivism by over 500%! See pg. 727 [“Later, looking back on the study, Padilla testified: ‘we were surprised by the recidivism rates. We expected the recidivism rates to be thirty-seven, thirty-eight percent. Much higher [which] would be consistent with . . . what the Static 99 [score] was showing.’”]

So how much do the Static “tests” overestimate for non-SVP’s??? Another reason why Karl Hanson is secretive with his “static” data. Also, probably why CASOMB, DOJ, and SARATSO are trying to pass off a recent 10-year “study” — written by Karl Hanson, Seung C. Lee (Hanson’s PhD student from Carleton University), as well as two bureaucrats from the DOJ — as “science.”

Hanson and DOJ will never let true scientists, at least those with a concern for truth, have unbridled access to Karl Hanson’s data. Access to data is required by the APA Code of Ethics. But because Hanson is *not* a licensed psychologist in the United States, there has been question to whether he is even bound by APA Code of Ethics. This *may* have been a reason to why government bureaucrats decided to use Canadian “researchers” to conduct risk assessment research for the sex offender industrial complex: To avoid American ethics requiring data transparency. (APA Ethics Code, Section 8.14, requires psychologists to furnish data, after their research results are published, to “other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis.”)

There is a good chance that the Static-99R is absolute, overhyped, junk “science.” The “revised” version only adjusts for age at release (*not current age*). It’s strange that CASOMB is intent to impose the Static-99R on *all* sex offenders, when there have been question to its applicability to even SVP’s.

APA Ethics Code, Section 8.14:

Karl Hanson’s “Science” Failed Daubert Standard:

Open your eyes!! Open your minds!! There’s a reason why much of the Static-99R’s data is top secret!! We’re being duped again!!

if the breathalizers had to turn over their coading as it was challenged in court why has the scam 99 not had to?

Combine this study/paper with this one and what have we got?

The Scientific Study Condemned by Congress
By Ross Pomeroy
July 26, 2016

Great! Can this study be used successfully in court to strike down SVP label and civil commitment?

So question for everybody the police department gave me 3 different answers. If I sign up for community college when do I register with campus pd when school starts or as soon as I sign up? Or when ? This is in California thank you

Did anyone read the whole thing- OMG, the Department of State Hospitals has suppressed evidence and information and eventually access to files when asked by Dr. Padilla. I can’t believe no one has followed these allegations and brought some sort of suit to get them to open the information to the public. Are we not footing the bill for these hospitals? As far as I know, California spends nearly $235,000 per patient/inmate per year to run this hospital. You do the math. I don’t think Californians know that every time we vote for some ludicrous law, that we also have to pay for it- in many horrible ways…..