ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
9/15 – Berkeley, 10/13 – W. Sacramento (date change), 10/20 – Los Angeles

Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles): 8/24, 9/22, 10/27, 11/24, 12/22 [details]

Conference Videos Online7/14 Meeting Audio

California

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

[ssrn.com – 7/16/18]

Abstract

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

 

Join the discussion

  1. AO

    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.

  2. Joe123

    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.

  3. Scam-99 Statistical Phrenology

    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: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=11

    Karl Hanson’s “Science” Failed Daubert Standard: http://karenfranklin.com/files/Perren-Ruling-Static99-RRASOR.pdf

    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!!

    • Chris

      After reading this report, two things I find deeply troubling:

      1. State is concealing low recidivism data helpful to even SVPs;

      2. Static-99’s absurd exaggeration for “high” scorers.

      “Minority Report” is exactly what the Static 99 is. I doubt making a -3 to 1 point correction helps much to make the Static 99R any better. Especially if the age correction isn’t current age, but “age at release” (think about how illogical this is… especially when people aren’t “static;” we aren’t rocks for Christ’s sake). Static 99R is one of the biggest things that doesn’t make sense about the tiered law. Amazed it was not addressed in the monthly phone call.

      To steal some points from other people (no pun intended)… Static 99R assumes that every registrant has the same 10 risk factors that led to their crime. Oh give me a break. Complete bullshit. Every person is different. To take another point from someone else, the “risk factors” might not even have anything to do with a particular person and their particular offense.

      Static 99R is not individualized; it is bureaucratic rubber stamping. Static 99R is an easy way out for government to perpetuate a registry under “science” without actually addressing the underlying problems to having a sex registry. Also, some people say the Static score is good for 10 years; but if you carefully read the Coding Rules (as if the static coding rules deserve any credibility to begin with), it is only valid for 2 years after release. So why are Karl Hanson and others now making it seem like the score is good for 10+ years?????

      Remember that the State continues selling a “tool” that’s failed for SVPs. Now, suddenly, the Static 99R is something that’s good for all sex offenders. “Good” enough to be concealed under “Saratso tool.” Give me a break.

      . . . . .

      Although I like to stay out of arguments here, and I mostly visit this site just to read, I must say that the 10k to 12k people scored “high” on the Static is not small. Professor Ellman, who said only about 8% will be hurt by a high Static, might be off because I read from other experts that 10% to 12% of males score high on the Static 99R.

      Even IF only 8%, like what Ellman says, that is still ~8,400 people in California that happen to score high. Like one of you made a point, 8,400 is larger than most other states’ RSO populations. Don’t know who to believe anymore; but I can say I no longer trust an expert who makes 8,400 people seem like a small number. Especially given the excessive punishments everyone has gone through.

      The 20 year petition period for people that score high on the Static 99R is another bullshit concession. For ONLY 20 years, you will be labeled Tier 3 because of pseudo, junk, “science.” Again, absolute bullshit.

      What’s striking is that so many experts, like Eric Janus, are suddenly putting their name behind the Static 99R, even though there are so many basic flaws to it that doesn’t take a PhD to figure out. A lot of things do not make sense here.

      Something fishy here. It’s almost as if there might be government grant money being dished out to (more or less) bribe all the “experts” to morph into Static 99R supporters.

      :::SMH:::

  4. Florida Sucks

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

    • AJ

      @Florida Sucks:
      if the breathalizers had to turn over their coading as it was challenged in court why has the scam 99 not had to?
      —–
      Because breathalyzers are used as evidence and “testimony” in a court of law. Therefore, a defense attorney is allowed to “cross examine” and inspect the source code.

  5. AnotherAnon

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

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

    https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/07/the_scientific_study_condemned_by_congress.html

    • Joe123

      Great find ^ the American people can’t handle an inconvenient truth. God forbid the Victimhood crusaders see this. They’ll drop dead from the shock that not everyone falls within their narrative of being a ‘victim’ of something for life.

  6. totally against public registry

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

    • AO

      Probably not because facts aren’t relevant to “rational review”. I’m not being funny. Just stating a literal fact. Courts are more than happy to simply state it’s not their job to study such facts and just leave that up to the legislators, the very same people who care about facts even less.

      Seems like the most likely course of using such information is long terms via electing new people who actually care about facts, and care about facts beyond the campaign without simply bowing down to public perception.

      • AnotherAnon

        On the other side of the coin, the court cannot consider facts not in evidence. That is why there is so much more to preparing a case than filing the right forms on time.

  7. David

    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

    • ab

      Look at the registration requirement pages you initialed that you should have gotten copies of when you registered. One should specifically talk about registering for taking classes at college. I believe its within a certain amount of days after you have officially been enrolled at the college to take classes, but one of the registration requirements will give you all the details.

    • AJ

      @David:
      I don’t know CA law, but most state a RC must register anywhere one is ENROLLED (vs. attending). To me that means the moment you’re accepted and have signed up for courses, the clock starts ticking. Aside from pride and sticking it to the man a little bit, what benefit is there in waiting? There’s certainly a harm if waiting too long…

    • The Unforgiven

      I have been a community college student for awhile now in San Bernardino County. They always ask for my class schedule among the other usual things. Once I have registered for classes, I print that and visit campus police in a timely manner.

    • New Person

      @ David,

      You register with the college PD the moment you’re enrolled. Your enrollment is evidence that you are now part of the college system. Bring your course schedule with you and a copy of your annual registration paperwork. If you’re under probation or parole, then bring those paperwork. If you’ve earned a 1203.4 (expungement), then bring a copy of that court order. Each college is different, so just bring everything to reduce the number of times you have to visit the college PD.

      Another point, when you do go to register with the college PD and there are people around, then tell the receptionist that you’ve just enrolled and need to register for 290. Most people don’t know what 290 means, but the college PD receptionist does and that might help mitigate the shame of saying you’re a sex offender registering.

      Each college is different in what they want from you once you’ve declared you’re enrolled in their program. Good luck!

    • Florida Sucks

      David,

      I would say read the law

      I’ll also go out on a string and say the law will state attending or registered if it states attending then you do it when you attend; sell it say registered then do it upon registration.

    • NPS

      It depends on the school. Be sure to check the campus safety department on their policy.

      I attended SF State, and they said register five days before classes start in August; this was done yearly until I graduated. Now I’m attending CSU East Bay. Again, registration before the official Fall start date, but I don’t have to register every year. The officer said that it wasn’t necessary to register every term. Just de-register once I complete the program.

      With both schools, I didn’t need to bring any paperwork. All I needed was my campus ID and driver license. The Campus PD also leaves you alone.

    • Greg

      Prior to enrollment, make appointment with campus police. It’s ridiculous because many time campus police are just security guards but that’s how it goes. It was pretty easy. Stupid but easy, good luck

  8. totally against public registry

    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…..

Leave a Reply to Joe123 Cancel reply

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 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.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *