ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings 2019 [details]
Emotional Support Group: (Los Angeles) 12/22 [details]

Registration Laws for all 50 States

California

CA: Did California Authorities Suppress Research on Sexually Violent Predators?

[thecrimereport.org – 8/3/18]

State laws that allow sexually violent predators to be locked up even after they have served their sentences are based on questionable assumptions that they continue to pose a danger to society, according to a study published in the American Criminal Law Review.

The study focused on California where, according to the authors, research indicating that sexually violent predators (SVPs) are less likely to re-commit crimes than other offenders was suppressed because it challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the state’s SVP laws.

The research in the mid-2000s by Dr. Jesus Padilla, a clinical psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital, a California maximum-security institution that houses mentally ill offenders, found that just 6.5 percent of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility.

But the research was halted and its findings hidden in what, in effect, was an attempt to “bury” information that might challenge the constitutional basis for the $147.4 million program operated by the California Department of Mental Health that supervised the involuntary commitment of SVPs, the study claimed.

Read more

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. Scam-99

    Considering that the Static-99 exaggerated recidivism by 500% to 600% – and the state worked hard to “suppress” this evidence – why would we ever trust the State of California ever again when it comes to pushing these pseudo “sciences?”

    10 questions can “predict” a person’s future? GTFO!!!

    • Jon

      RE: STATIC 99R

      Outside looking in, it’s amazing to see how many people are willing to defend Karl Hanson and the Static 99 scam.

      I’d like to ask the question of how many people has Karl Hanson harmed in keeping his “data” a secret? If Hanson has harmed even one person through his sham of a “test”—either in the regular SO setting or even SVP setting—then I don’t understand all the hype and rock star treatment we’re giving this Karl Hanson character. How many times had the Static 99R been used to keep people indefinitely committed now and in the past—and how many times will it be used to hurt people in the future?!

      From what I’ve seen, maybe about half of experts have disagreed with the Static 99R. The other half of “experts” (“Karl Hanson disciples”) seem either deeply entrenched in the “treatment” schemes (think Sharper Future-type)—or are somehow pony to CASOMB/CDCR/DOJ/SARATSO. Yes, I’m thinking that even government grants are playing an incentive to have experts sellout in favor of the Static 99 scams.

      It’s sad to see the state that we’re in. We can’t even recognize junk science when it’s right in front of us.

      — j.c.

      • Harry

        A defective product lawsuit against Karl Hanson should be considered.

        • Joe

          Nothing / no one is stopping you. Consider it. Do it. Let us know how it goes. Good luck.

      • Joe

        “We”? We who? The people reading this site? Janice, perhaps? Are you seriously so delusional that you think what they think or believe has any impact on anything?

        Please save your frequent and redundant rants for the people that matter. The California legislature. Maybe you spend as much time “educating” them as you do ranting here. Then again, I watched all the hearings in Sacramento and I saw no one testifying to make your point. Hmmmm…

        Risk assessment, when it comes to people is a crapshoot. We have no problem assigning risk on even less questions. For example, to charge the same auto insurance rate to a young man who never drinks and has been for 10 years driving the truck on his parents farm as the same age male who has been smoking pot and drinking whiskey for the same amount of time is absurd.

        The difference is that for insurance risk is dynamic and tailored to time and circumstances. The fact that the legislature is mis-using (with ignorance or malice) a risk (dynamic by definition) instrument that has the word “static’ in its very title and states it is good for 10 years max is NOT its fault.

        I would strongly recommend you redirect your energies. From this web site to the legislature in Sacramento. From the actual instrument to its application.

        For the love of God.

      • Karl Hanson's Fortune Telling Crystal Ball (insert 25¢)

        @Jon,

        Personally, I would not mind Joe. Many of my objections to the Static-99R scam have been criticized by him. Joe seems to make the assumption that everyone who dislikes/opposes/hates the Static scam and/or Karl Hanson is simply “ranting” or are the same person.

        Also, where did Joe get the impression that the Static-99R is “good for 10 years max?” In no uncertain terms, the Static-99R Coding Rules clearly states that “Static risk assessments estimate the likelihood of recidivism at the time of release and we expect they would be valid for approximately two years.” pg. 13.

        http://static99.org/pdfdocs/Coding_manual_2016_InPRESS.pdf

        Of course, Karl Hanson will one day rewrite his “coding rules” to fit the appropriate narrative of his puppet masters.

  2. just a person

    ““If the Court had asked what the basis was for this conclusion, they would have been sorely disappointed,” the study says. “We searched the legislative minutes for the 1994 Kansas law and found no citations to data on prospective danger.””

    Can we ask the court to find the basis for this. That way it will be in the court record?

  3. mike r

    “If the Court had asked what the basis was for this conclusion, they would have been sorely disappointed,” the study says. “We searched the legislative minutes for the 1994 Kansas law and found no citations to data on prospective danger.”

    You mean something like the following that the AG has until the 24th to respond to?
    https://ufile.io/k6bfv

    And these questions…
    1. that Defendant does not have any specific information to contradict the statements in the Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 which states that, “A closer look at the scholarly research reveals that almost all studies show a relatively low recidivism rate for sex offenses as opposed to other crimes”;
    2. that the defendant does not have any specific information to contradict the statements made on Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 which states that, “Danger Posed by Registered Sex Offenders and Public notification of registered sex offenders is rooted in the belief that there is a substantial risk of recidivism among sex offenders” “This belief is repeated in the legislative findings and declarations stated in this bill.”;
    3. that Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 states in capital letters, “IS THIS PROPOSAL BASED ON A WRONG ASSUMPTION THAT THESE OFFENDERS POSE A HEIGHTENED RISK FOR RE-OFFENDING? DOES THE UNIQUE NATURE OF SEX OFFENSES AND THEIR HARM TO VICTIMS MAKE THIS INQUIRY LESS E RELEVANT?”;
    4. that the California legislature did not specifically consider any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender recidivism rate data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290.46;
    5. that the California legislature did not specifically consider the efficacy (the term efficacy used here is defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result) of the California Megan’s Law Website during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290.46;
    6. that the California legislature did not specifically consider any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender recidivism rate data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290 et. seq.;
    7. that the California legislature did not specifically consider the efficacy (the term efficacy used here is defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result) of public notification of sex offender registration data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290 et. seq.;

    Now I guess I might have to come up with some more RFAs to address this issue just to get it in front of a judge and on the record…

  4. mike r

    IDK if this posted because I do not see it as waiting for moderation so here is a snippet with the point.
    So you mean questions like the ones at the following links that the AG has until the 24th to answer?
    https://ufile.io/k6bfv
    https://ufile.io/b0lpm

    Oh I think I will have to come up with another set of RFAs addressing this issue as well just to get it on the record for others whom may wish to challenge the SVP and civil commitment statutes…

  5. steve@mike

    I would say this article is just another piece of evidence that so laws are purely punishment not based on any rational evidence as you said in a previous post. Padilla could be a good resource for you.

    • mike r

      Yep i am still thinking about how I am going to spin this for my case. This needs to be in front of a judge and on the record in a court proceeding such as mine. I am contemplating what RFAs to ask the CA AG concerning this issue. Remember anything legislative that I ask has to be answered especially since the language of the AG’s own legislative fact finder and holder of all things legislative.

  6. steve

    Forget SVP’s for a second, this suppression of empirical evidence is true about the entire sor scheme. I think this story, if true is huge in our fight.

  7. Alienated

    Of course they hid the real results! How else do you feed the machine?

  8. bruce

    what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled.
    Micro stamps do not exist and cannot be made in accordance with the California Law they ruled in favor of.
    So when that was brought to their attention they replied:
    PAY ATTN:
    “Laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”
    PURE INSANITY…Read IT AGAIN…“Laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”
    SOUNDS LIKE THE REGISTRY TO ME….Que No?

Leave a 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 *