ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings [details]
November 2018 Call Audio
, 12/08 – San Diego

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

Registration Laws for all 50 States

CaliforniaJanice's Journal

Janice’s Journal: Register Today as a Los Angeles County Poll Worker

[ACSOL]

The Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters has adopted a policy that prohibits anyone convicted of a sex offense from working as a poll worker. This policy defies logic and violates both state law as well as the federal constitution.

According to state law, anyone eligible to vote is eligible to serve as a poll worker and will be paid to do so. Most counties abide by that law by allowing individuals convicted of a sex offense from serving as a poll worker during an election.

With the importance of the upcoming election in November, there is sure to be a large turnout at the polls. In the past, Los Angeles County has had difficulties recruiting enough people to serve as poll workers.

Why then would Los Angeles County prohibit more than 15,000 citizens of that county, who are required to register as sex offenders, from serving as poll workers? Why then would Los Angeles County not consider the nature of the offense for which the individual was convicted, the number of years since the conviction and whether the individual is currently required to register as a sex offender?

Los Angeles County has made a big mistake and it’s time for them to admit it. Instead, the county has decided to defend its mistake in its answer to a lawsuit filed in state court that challenges the county’s illegal policy.

In order to test the County’s policy, ACSOL requests that as many registrants as possible volunteer to serve as poll workers in the November election.

Click here to fill out an online poll workers’ application  on the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (RRCC) web site.
or
Click here to download the Angeles County Poll Worker Application form [Aug 2018] which you fill out and mail.

And although the election is three months away, this is a good time to volunteer. Good luck to all! Please let us know in the comments below what response you receive.

— Janice Bellucci

Read all Janice’s Journals

 

 

 

 

Join the discussion

  1. cool CA RC

    Do I need to live in LA to do this?

    • cool CA RC

      If Rich can do this.
      I m going to do this.. Be right back!

    • cool CA RC

      Im back..
      PA080618035248

      You what? I m going to apply in my location and if they say no. All I have to do is give you a email.

    • David Kennerly is Frightening and High

      Living in San Francisco, I really hope that they DON’T accept my application 🙂 Still, I applied in L.A.

      • Hmmm...

        Here’s what I don’t get. We can live completely law-abiding lives for decades before and after our conviction. But suddently, when we are arrested, convicted, then ordered to register, the government insist on treating us as lepers. I say this because I worked as a poll worker during elections in high school and college, when the pay was $80 to $100. In my mid-20’s, I was convicted.

        Now, about a decade later, I’m suddently too much of a “risk” to be able to do what I’ve done before? Not to mention, how many years has it been since we’ve been convicted, free in community, with no other incident? For many of us, it’s been many years… sometimes decades. These “sex offender” exclusions are nothing more as providing the opporunity for government to ramp up hysteria, exercise its power to exclude/discriminate, and shame (which is clearly a form of punishment). Not to mention, it deprives us of being able to make a fair, one-day living wage.

  2. Tim l

    I trust some of you will step up and apply for the big as pool worker.
    PLEASE help Janice poke the bear, they deserve it.

  3. Sunny

    Note that Orange County has the same policy:
    https://www.ocvote.com/volunteer/volunteer-qualifications/

    “Individuals who are currently on parole for a felony conviction, or are a registered sex offender cannot volunteer”

    You can volunteer to serve as a poll worker in OC here:
    https://www.ocvote.com/volunteer/volunteer-to-serve/

    I have submitted applications for both LA County and Orange County.

  4. Rich

    When I saw this in my email, I immediately filled out the application online and even though I live in Sacramento County there is nothing stating that I cannot apply to either work or volunteer–in fact the only requirement is to be at least 18 years old and either registered to vote in California or be a “Legal Permanent Resident of the United States (Green Card Holder).” So I would encourage every registered citizen across the nation to apply.

    There is a disclaimer stating, “*Individuals who are registered sex offenders cannot volunteer.” I feel that disclaimer is unconstitutional and believe ACSOL will prevail against this blanket discriminatory action. I look forward to my day in court (or deposition) on every registered citizen’s behalf. To insure my willingness to volunteer I indicated I would be available to volunteer in every single area of the county and indicated I have my own transportation. I immediately received a reply from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk:
    “You have SUCCESSFULLY submitted your online application. It will be forwarded to the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for further approval. We will contact you once the process has been completed. Thank you and we hope to see you soon! Confirmation Number: PA080618024021”

    • Janice Bellucci

      Thank you, Rich! Hope you are the first of thousands to apply.

      • Rich

        PS… I also applied to Orange County as well!

        • Roger

          Rich, thanks for taking action.

          Be sure to follow through with your promise to be a poll worker where you are accepted. This isn’t just a symbolic thing. We want to show them that registrants are responsible members of society and can make positive contributions to our election system

          Just filling out applications won’t improve society’s impression of us. If we all sign up but nobody shows up, what will they think of us?

        • Will Allen

          Roger (August 6, 2018):

          I don’t think Registered People (RPs (yep, I know the “s” is a little funny, but I like it)) should worry about showing that they are “responsible members of society”. Or at least I feel that can and should be shown just by being a good person, not allowing any criminal regime to arrest you for anything, and being successful. RPs should not worry about what other people think of them. Be a great person to people that you know are good people and F everyone else. Don’t ever do anything that could conceivably help anyone who supports the Registries (Registry Terrorists (RTs)).

          On the flip side, I think signing up 10,000 people to volunteer for something and then 0 showing up would be the best message to send. I think the message that should be sent is that we are going to disrupt society. We are going to identify RTs and disrupt their lives. If you can’t mind your own business and leave other families alone, then you need to reap what you sow. You aren’t going to make RPs marginal citizens and not suffer because of it. Don’t expect to live in peace. That is the message that needs to be delivered daily. Chaos, disorder, and war.

        • Roger

          @Will, the war we are in for justice has many battlefields. I get why you are focused on the battlefield of disruption: you are pissed off at the injustice done to you and the rest of us. I also am angry at society for treating us worse than murderers.

          But there are different levels and types of disruption. (By the way, ACSOL never condones violent disruption of any kind–that would set our fight against the perception of “scary registrants” waaaaay back!)

          ACSOL has disrupted dozens of cities and counties from enforcing residency and presence restrictions–many of them were really pissed off, but we won anyway!

          ACSOL has disrupted what used to be swift passage of anti-registrant bills in the California legislature, resulting in very few being presented this election year. What a change!

          ACSOL has disrupted what the Coalinga State Hospital thought would be an easy persecution of the inmates there by our lawsuit.

          And much more in store!

          You and anyone else can be a part of these disruptions of business-as-usual by subscribing to our Action Alerts.

          ACSOL is attempting to disrupt the anti-registrant polling jobs by simultaneously filing the lawsuit while having us apply for the polling jobs. This is a double-pronged strategy.

          But the goal is NOT just disruption of their bad policy. The ultimate goal is to open a door for us to show we are good members of society that should not be feared. That is the only long-term solution to permanently decreasing anti-registrant legislation and court decisions.

          If we apply with no intention of taking that door of opportunity, we will show that all we wanted to do was make a political statement but not be at the polls. That would be like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown! Goodbye to any future chance of them trusting us to be poll workers, and would be rationalization in their minds for thinking we shouldn’t be a part of society. And word would get around!

          So I recommend that we show up when we get a poll job and talk to the other poll workers. That will be one more step to not being thought of as inhuman.

          But if you are intent on, “Ha! Fooled you into trusting me! In your face!” then know you are just setting back our fight harder.

        • Will Allen

          Roger (August 7, 2018):

          I don’t think it can be overstated all of the good that ACSOL has done. There would be all kinds of additional idiotic “laws” and harassment in place if it were not for them. No doubt. They are a truly patriotic organization that every real American should support. And ACSOL has no obligations at all to do anything helpful or help anyone – most people should recognize that a lot better than they do.

          Regarding this issue, I certainly see your point and it might be the best overall way to do it. However, I think mass demonstrations of civil disorder are good. Personally, I think it would be good if the criminal regimes were forced to sign up 10,000 Registered People (RPs) as poll workers, none of them showed up, and the elections were a complete mess. I think that would be great. It is not an “in your face”. It would be more, “We tried to be the normal, good citizens that we are and yet again you idiotically and worthlessly attacked us. You need to suffer consequences for your crimes. Stop being scumbags.”

          Then the criminal regimes might get the point that if they can stop acting like idiots and thinking that people on the hit list should and can be treated differently, then next time ALL people can just act how normal people will. They can sign up to be a poll worker if they feel inclined and show up to help. The criminal regimes could even avoid all their usual whining about “$EX offenders” in polling locations (e.g. schools) and just provide all the normal security that is needed completely regardless of if an RP in is the vicinity or not.

        • Tim Moore

          I am most certain people think the only reason we would want to be poll workers is to gain access to victims. I think disrupting their gig is showing we are also capable of political action. People don’t respond to niceness from registered citizens. They interpret it as deception. They only respond to consequences. That seems to be the reallity at this point. Hopefully, when more people recognize we are not playing into their myths, then they may be open to seeing us as individuals, as nice people, with families, friends and hopes just like anyone else. But now we are having our lives continually disrupted for a falsehood.

        • Will Allen

          Tim Moore (August 8, 2018):

          You said, “I am most certain people think the only reason we would want to be poll workers is to gain access to victims.” Truly, I think any people who would believe that “gain access” nonsense are stunningly stupid. But the U.S. is chock full of people like that today. The vast, widespread, rampant stupidity should rarely shock anyone any longer.

          You said, “People don’t respond to niceness from registered citizens” and “They only respond to consequences.” THAT I believe 100%.

          Personally, I’ll build my own empire full of good, decent people. I will ensure that “people” who support Registries are excluded, marginalized, ostracized, and the quality of their lives is lowered. They will reap what they sow.

      • Billy Jack

        Dear Janice and all, I applied today. Can ACSOL sue them?

  5. Tim Moore

    I checked all the cities. Really, it may be convenient, but I would drive up from San Diego to any one of them to prove a point. You can’t take away our rights without a fight.

  6. Tim Moore

    Be sure to print out the page with your confirmation number

  7. steve bloch

    I’m sorry I don’t see the point in this. It would seem more beneficial to focus on eliminating the registry and then you don’t have to worry about these things. It seems there are lot’s of victories happening I would think one of these could be applied to a CA lawsuit.

    • matthew

      I think the point is to show that we are viewed different than any other charge out there and are pushed out of helping society. If they constantly push us away and see us all the same, the court case pulls stronger in our favor. Its pretty much setting up dominoes to have them all fall in place at once.

    • Matt

      Steve,
      I agree. Although I think I understand what’s happening here, I think this will wind up being another bait and switch scam like SB 384. The divide and conquer routine continues. I rarely agree with Roger, but he’s absolutely right on his comment above. If several hundred volunteer, and Janice wins the law suit, and nobody shows up, they’ll be drilling holes in the deck of their own boats. If a disruption happens, and we win a small fight, that’s great. But it seems to me that the only actually meaningful fight is the one in front of the Supreme Court that stops the registry in its entirety. Even then, the states are likely to recreate their own state versions of same. But fighting and winning dozens of small, incremental fights seems like the long way to me. That said, this policy is a clear violation of rights. If we fight this one and lose……maybe that’s the case that goes all the way up.

      • Tim L

        The reason you should do as Janice suggests is it goes to INTENT of SORNA. The people’s INTENT with Megan’s law and Jacobs law was upheld against ex post challenge.
        The key to Dissolving the registry is to expose the retributive underlying INTENT. SEX offenders in polling stations is no threat to others. Therefore the intent is affirmative disability without sound reason. That is to punish.

        The feds have no reason to limit the uses of databases by gov’t agents but the people do.

      • David Kennerly is Frightening and High

        It’s gotta be a multi-front war, Matt. We have many battles ahead and we need to get in the habit of mobilizing to fight them, big and small. This is important for another reason, too which is to demonstrate to the public that we are not going to roll-over anymore or perform their tricks on demand like trained circus dogs. No marginalized peoples have ever gotten anywhere without getting off of their couches and mussing their hair. This is just the beginning and we will become habituated to fighting this war and facing down our many enemies or we will lose. That’s our only choice.

        • Matt

          David, I generally agree with what you’re saying. And even when I disagree with people on strategy, I still feel very lucky to have anybody, anywhere, fighting for us at all. If this is what Janice wants people to do, then those who can, should. No argument there. I come from a positiion that the registry, in its entirety, is unconstitutional. I doubt that anybody who has a clear-thinking mind would disagree. I know that it could take tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars and several years to get a case though the system to SCOTUS, and correct the error they made many years ago. So, if we know that we have limited resources, I suggest that we get laser focused on the goal that has the most bang for the buck. It’s not that what has been done so far is incorrect, or counter productive in my eyes. (There was one hugely counter productive one in my eyes; SB 384) It’s that with the advancements in technology we are seeing today, I suspect this is all going to get much, much worse for us before it gets better. Every time we score a “small victory” something comes along that seems to negate it. Some jack wagon slightly changes the law, a new bill gets introduced and passed with 100% support, etc., etc. I have been mocked (and even blocked once or twice) for suggesting that facial rec., RFID chips for tracking, and more are just around the corner for us. I’m not a crazy person. I am a pragmatist. I believe this is coming. And I believe it’s coming momentarily. The passport ID’s are just the beginning. People have suggested that our driver’s licenses, and even our license plates, should have identifiers. It’s only a matter of time. So, given all of that, it is my humble opinion that while small fights may be necessary, and even important, I think we need to move the entire goal to the Supreme Court in the fastest way possible. I do see value in the poll worker fight because if we happen to lose in lower courts, that could be an example of direct punishment for registration that effects one of our most fundamental rights as Americans. But I think the fact that several people per year get murdered for being registrants is a much better argument. I’m not arguing for the sake of argument. I am simply questioning strategy, and I am perfectly fine with being wrong……..as long as we are moving towards freedom from this prison outside of prison.

        • David Kennerly is Frightening and High

          Matt, I don’t disagree, on the whole. One point I would like to make is the importance of getting individuals involved, and invested, in this struggle. Signing up as many of us to be poll workers is a modest, but achievable goal and, perhaps more importantly than challenging the government on that single issue (although it is in aid of a legal challenge that Janice recommends), it enables many to take that important first step towards action. There has been a paucity of grassroots activism on our parts. We absolutely must support the efforts of the lawyers who work for our cause but we must also find other ways in which those of us who are not lawyers can engage directly with this struggle. It’s not an either/or situation; it’s both and at the same time. I don’t quite agree with the prognostication of an escalating severity model, though. I think that we have now had enough influence to hold at bay most of the worst of these. We should see this emergent plateau as directly attributable to our organizations and an aroused civil liberties community. (see attorney Jeffrey Gamso’s presentation at NARSOL 2018 where he makes the point that things are bad but legislatures are not getting the worst laws that they would like. “Jeffrey Gamso: Bodyke & Beyond A Decade of Un Change” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo9fxlhOEeI

        • Tim Moore

          Well that’s the thing. How many people feel they have ownership in this struggle? Someone else better able to fight for you is always in charge of your freedom. That or the only way to make progress is to feel you have to be a legal savant.

    • Matt Phillips

      I agree. A bunch of small victories are great. But just like the great bait and switch scam of SB 384, they’ll just keep adjusting policies to get what they want. I would rather see the registry as a whole, deemed what it is, unconstitutional. Roger is right in his comment above though. If people volunteer for this and don’t show up, they’re just giving ammunition to the other side. (which is everybody by the way.) And on the flip side; this policy is clearly illegal. If we fight this and lose, this might be a good one to take all the way to the top. Voting and participation in elections is a fundamental American right.

    • Mr. D

      If I had to speculate, OC and LAC are unlikely to uncover any Registered Citizen who has had an expungement and is not on the public registry. Anyone else believe this is likely to be the case?

    • Sunny

      The point is to set a precedent that establishes registrants as a protected class, consistent with California statute prohibiting the use of the Megan’s law website for employment, etc. LA and OC are blatantly discriminating against registrants in violation of the law. We need actual registrants to apply in order to have standing in a lawsuit. A victory in this case could set a substantial precedent positively impacting our protected class status and ability to find gainful employment. This is no trivial matter. The outcome could benefit us all.

  8. Liz

    I enrolled as a poll worker today, and I got a confirmation number. I’ve been a CA registrant for 26 years, I’m eligible to vote and I always do in the primaries and major elections. I see no reason why L.A. County should hold back registrants from being a poll worker.

  9. Jason

    PA080818012544

    Completed.

  10. Jojo

    I filled out the voter poll worker (paid volunteer) application, checking the Glendale box, and I got a confirmation number. I have lived/voted here for 22 years except when involuntary relocated and denied voting privileges.
    My voting was restored 10 years ago.

  11. Mot

    Sent in my application and got a confirmation number; so , what is the plan if and when we all get rejected?

  12. Timothy D. A. Lawver

    Looks like this group is rolling on this WAYYYY COOOOOOL Opportunity!
    Please hit the SOTP group of your choice and enlist enlist enlist!
    You’ve gottem on the defensive in this one.

    I LUUUUUUUV J’s Idea here!
    Theoretically three legal birds with one stone can be had.
    That, as our founders clearly understood, is the intrinsic nature of Ex- post law.
    They had sound reason to forbid such.
    The destructive nature of eroding credibility of the users!
    Our founders were an eclectic group and not all puritan. They knew how to keep a nation of people WHOLE.

  13. Timothy D.A. Lawver

    @ DAVID K.
    REGISTRY TERRORIST (RT) is a kind term, too kind for the group that thought up this boondoggle.
    I’ve much more respect for the jihadist who martyrs himself than these insidious fools, here is why. At least the
    JT does it in the open, RT does it behind your back!
    The JT ain’t pretending to believe. RTs are!
    The JT doesn’t line his pockets. RTs do!
    The JT will utilize a database to pick a target. RTs will use a database to conjure counterfeit targets.

    Which is more evil?

    I’ve had my say
    Thanks

    • Will Allen

      Timothy D.A. Lawver (August 16, 2018):

      One thing that is clear is that people who support the Registries do need a great, derogatory label that describes them as the scumbags that they are. What is that label?

      I think “terrorist” is accurate. It is someone who cannot mind their own business or leave other families alone. It is someone who tries to attack families as often as is convenient for their lame selves and the attacks don’t have to be based on any facts at all, be rational, or be consistent with reality. “terrorist” is a criminal committing criminal acts. They are enemies of good people, who must defeat them.

      I have used other terms but I don’t like them as much. I’ve used “Registrymonger” long back, but that is too tame. “Registry Mongrel” is nice and describes them well but it could be misconstrued to be referring to the people who are listed on the Registries. So I don’t know. I always keep my eyes open for things I like.

      • Tim Lawver

        Victimite Vik-tem-Ite
        ( noun)
        A person who thrives through the victimization of another in a surreptitious and parasitic manner.

        I could use some feedback on my working definition. Using in sentences n so forth. EXAMPLES ANYONE?????????????

        • R M

          I’d be careful in using that term, it has a pending trademark application.
          https://trademarks.justia.com/878/79/victimite-87879975.html

        • Tim L

          RM,
          Thanks for the heads up!

        • AnotherAnon

          @Joe,

          I suppose you’re being facetious. Okay.

          My point was that the Static-99 is a piece of propaganda. I linked to The Forensic Psychologist’s page in support of that. Real debate is the only remedy to propaganda. If you are saying all debate here is futile because this isn’t a courtroom, I would mostly agree, which is why I support defamation lawsuits against Halloween fear-mongering, etc.

        • Joe

          @AnotherAnon –

          not in the slightest.

          And propaganda? The Static-99 is a statistical exercise in a very young field with very few practitioners, with pages and pages of backup. What Ms. Franklin appears to lament is an unorthodox development path. That hardly makes it propaganda.

          Please support your categorical statement that “the Static-99 is a piece of propaganda”.

          I am not saying that all debate here is futile, but I am saying that repeated diatribes by one affected party (my impression) on this forum are annoying and misplaced, as the fundamental problem is not with the Static-99 itself but how the (CA) legislature chooses (with ignorance and / or malice) to misuse it. So, this disconnect needs to be demonstrated to the legislature so THEY can cease applying the 10 year / STATIC test to LIFETIME registration.

          As such, this here is NOT the right forum, and repeated posts (from a “variety of authors”) are a blatant attempt to influence the readership. For personal gain. I call that Propaganda.

        • AnotherAnon

          The Static-99 does not apply to me because it can’t go back 25 years. I don’t care, I still don’t like it and can call it propaganda or whatever the fuck I want to call it.

        • AnotherAnon

          From a 2018 updated study in California:

          “The overall sexual recidivism rate during the fixed 10-year follow-up period was 10.4% (35/338; Table 10). Specifically, 11 of 35 recidivists committed non-contact sexual offenses (31%) and 24 of 35 recidivists committed contact sexual offenses (69%).”

          http://saratso.org/pdf/Lee_Hanson_Fullmer_Neeley_Ramos_2018_The_Predictive_Validity_of_S_.pdf

          The reason for calling it propaganda is because if only 10% recidivate, that means 90% did not, and yet they will have a Static-99 score, which commits the fallacy of the part equals the whole, which is exactly what all the propaganda has done since heinous crimes in national news equated everyone and legislatures followed suit with blanket laws. The public will not care what the score is, a registrant is a registrant. Some vigilante murderers cannot even understand what the conviction charge is.

        • Joe

          You may not like it and you can call it whatever you want – Jeddediah for all I care. Such a childish response, punctuated by an expletive, is an expected reaction. Does not answer the question, however.

          And I would not be too sure that it won’t apply to you in terms of the upcoming Tiered Registry. According to which a Tier 3 registrant is

          “(D) The person’s risk level on the static risk assessment instrument for sex offenders (SARATSO), pursuant to Section 290.04, is well above average risk at the time of release on the index sex offense into the community, as defined in the Coding Rules for that instrument.”

          PC 290.04 appearing to anoint the Static-99 as the instrument of choice, and the pertinent point in time being the time of release. Going back forever and ever until the beginning of time.

          That is the problem, and that is how it is being misused by the legislature.

        • Joe

          The Static-99 score is a relative expression. It measures the probability of an individual re-offending to that of the entire group, based on certain offense and life characteristics.

          The subject is scored to be less or more inclined to re-offend, as measured against the overall group – for a period limited enough that any changes in life characteristics are deemed immaterial (offense characteristics are and remain indeed static). Whether the overall recidivsm rate is high or low or something in between is immaterial here.

          That the (actually low) reoffense rate of the group has been historically portrayed as incorrectly (frighteningly) high has all kinds of reasons – from misunderstandings to shoddy research to blatant lies in front of the Supreme Court to cheap election fodder to media click bait and on and on.

          Public perception and subsequent criminal activity / homicide is hardly something that can be blamed on the Static-99.

          So we are back to “I don’t like it and I can call it whatever the f*ck I want”.

        • Olde

          Joe,

          Was there not a secret document, released by an SVP psychologist, that showed Karl Hanson (with his Static99) exaggerated recidivism by several hundred percent. If I recall the figure, it was an exaggeration of about 500%. This was a document that was suppressed by the state and would have discredited Karl Hanson. Does anyone have a link to this?

        • AnotherAnon

          Oh, Jeez, no wonder you get trolled so much.

        • Sick of Government Lies

          @Olde,

          The paper you mention was written by honest professors from UC Berkeley, as well as the University of Miami, School of Law. Professors that had the integrity to expose Minority Report “science.” The paper that you mention was published in three publications. Even for UNTREATED people given the “SVP” designation, their actual recidivism is at 6.5% within 4.8 years. Yet the Static-99 overestimated these same people to be at 37% to 38% recidivism. In other words, Karl Hanson and his Static-99 egregiously exaggerated at over 500% (as you correctly state). 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.’”].

          *** The State of California worked hard to suppress this document, including Dr. Padilla’s findings, because it would discredit the Static-99 and Karl Hanson. If the corruption were permitted to be exposed, then CASOMB and SARATSO would also be exposed for the big fraud they are in pushing Static-99R propaganda. Had Dr. Padillas findings been permitted to continue, forensic psychologists, “treatment” programs, CDCR, and probation offices would also be shamed for their reliance on the Static-99 scams. Again, the Courts worked hard to suppress evidence that would have discredited Karl Hanson and the Static-99. I don’t know about everyone else; but I believe the suppression of a “well-designed study,” just so corrupt people can continue to push “doctor” Karl Hanson and his Static-99 scams, to be absolutely horrendous (and frightening) to the precept of Justice. ***

          Here is a link from SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202538

        • Interesting...

          That is an interesting paper. It’s amazing that we’ve all been lied to at how Karl Hanson is some kind of “expert.” Reality is that Karl Hanson seems more scam artist than expert. I say this because the STATIC 99 clearly exaggerated, even for the “worst of the worst.” I’m wondering how much more Karl Hanson’s STATIC 99 bloats for the less serious offenders.

          For example, look at page 723: “That means that the released SVPs performed much more better than expected based on their STATIC 99 score. The difference is that much more striking considering that Dr. Padilla used arrests to measure their recidivism, and the creators of the STATIC 99 used convictions. Since many arrests do not end up in a conviction, the disparity would have been even greater if they had both used arrests as their basis of measurement.”

          So the question should be why does Karl Hanson hide the STATIC 99 data?? And why does the State of CA aid and abet in working hard to hide Karl Hanson’s lies in suppressing evidence damning Hanson and the STATIC? You’d think they are protecting secret information at Area 51 or Fort Knox…

          Page 723: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202538

        • Sick Of Government Lies

          I don’t know why so many so-called “experts” would back Karl Hanson, his Minority Report “science,” nor his Static-99R scam. Given their very basic logical flaws, you’d think that intelligent people would immediately identify the logical fallacies to the concept of 10 “test” questions being able to predict human behavior, especially more than one or two years out. Not to mention, the slippery slope attack on Civil Rights if such a procedure were permitted as precedent.

          So the intent in selling the Static-99R scam must be that these “intelligent” experts must have something to gain from the proliferation to Karl Hanson’s “sciences.” I can see why “treatment” companies, and their “doctors,” would defend the Static-99R. Because the Static-99R clearly exaggerates, it would lead to more “clients” and “patients” for their profit. Same for law enforcement and prosecutors. Exaggerated “risk,” coming from the Static-99R, means more people subject to sex offender registration laws. More Registrants mean more jobs, and more powerful police and correctional/probation/parole unions.

          What I don’t understand is why so many experts who proclaim favorability to our cause (ACSOL, RSOL, WAR, etc.) would back Karl Hanson and the Static-99R. What is *their* intent? What do these “experts” have to gain? Are there corrupt government grants funnelled to experts that sellout to turning a blind eye to Minority Report pseudo science? This could be one very big concern: hidden moles among us. Same with the other commenters on here; the ones that, for some reason, defend Karl Hanson. What do they have to gain in ignoring the conflicts of interests in Karl Hanson’s “studies?” What do they have to gain in ignoring non-transparency and top secret “data?” What do they have to gain in ignoring basic truth?

          All of Karl Hanson’s most fervorous defenders come up with the same defenses and personal attacks — whilst ignoring the red flags to the blatant “static” scam that is right before our eyes. The Static-99R scam is a threat. And it is no different than the bail reform “risk assessments” that the ACLU (and other organizations, including CATO, LA Times, the Marshall Project, and Reason) has condemned. Except for the fact that the Scam-99R is *completely* non-transparent, with Fake Doctor Karl Hanson protecting it as a “trade secret.” AND, because the Static-99R scam is used in the context of sex offender laws, logic is completely thrown out the door — and the same higher standards, as well as said organizations fighting for them, are no longer held to fight Scam-99R-like RSO risk assessment instruments.

          Could the slow introduction of the Static-99R scam be the first sign of worsening corruption when it comes to RSO laws? For some reason, Big Money is being used to prop Fake Doctor Karl Hanson on a pedestal. The critical question could be: Why?

      • j

        You have to work in Troll which is appropriate and just make sure it gets directed away from registrants. You are not dealing with an intelligent group so it might be difficult to make a point but at least we can derive some satisfaction knowing we are actually better than the busybodies and neighborhood watch trolls that use this to satisfy something in their warped self righteous beings. Start with a syllabus of appropriate words and phrases and go from there.

  14. Sunny

    I signed up to volunteer as a poll worker in Orange County. I received my poll worker packet last week and my assigned station for voting day at the Dana Point City Hall, which also has a police station attached to it. The packet included my official poll worker ID card, name badge, and login information for the state’s poll worker website, which I accessed and created an account. I also spoke with a county employee who scheduled me for training. She provided a basic overview and said that I would receive a stipend of about $130.

    The Orange County Registrar contacted me a few days ago, two hours before my scheduled training, to inform me that I would not be allowed to volunteer as a poll worker because they located me on the California Megan’s Law website. I asked them to put it in writing, which they did:

    OC REGISTRAR ———->
    Mr. —,

    Thank you for taking my call earlier. Thank you for your interest in serving as a poll worker. As we discussed, we are unable to use you as a volunteer on November 6th. All volunteers are checked against Megan’s Law records and your information was a match. Our policy is to not allow anyone found on this registry to volunteer. Many of our volunteers serve at schools, community centers, and other public facilities where students and minors may either be present or assigned as student volunteers. Let me know if you have any questions.

    Thank you for your time.

    ME ———->
    Mr. —,

    I was assigned to work at the Dana Point City Hall. That is not a school or a place where children would normally frequent. Also, there is a police station at the City Hall. Do you believe I would somehow present a risk to students and minors that may be present or assigned as student volunteers? I can assure you I am not a risk to anyone. In any case, this is a very public setting with many adults present alongside program coordinators, not to mention the presence of law enforcement. I would like to know why you view me as a risk and why you have this policy.

    Thank you,

    OC REGISTRAR ———->

    This is county policy. It is an added measure to protect all our volunteers, which include high school students. Student volunteers can be placed at any polling place in our county and are often moved on Election Day for coverage.
    When a match is found on the states Megan’s Law database they cannot serve as a volunteer. No exceptions are made to this policy.

    • Lake County

      It’s good you got the documentation Janice needed. I smell another lawsuit coming soon. Hopefully you will be willing to be a plaintiff. You might even end up getting your $130.00 worker fee (or more). It would seem that the 1st letter and packet was a commitment to hire you (a contract). Good luck and thanks for applying for the job. This lawsuit could cause some positive changes for all of us..

    • R M

      Wow at “This is county policy. It is an added measure to protect all our volunteers, which include high school students. Student volunteers can be placed at any polling place in our county and are often moved on Election Day for coverage.
      When a match is found on the states Megan’s Law database they cannot serve as a volunteer. No exceptions are made to this policy.”

      As 95+% of registered sex offenders do not ever commit another sex crime. I’d email them all the 21+ reports/studies for their reading pleasure.

      • Will Allen

        I don’t think the 95% thing is a good argument. Because 5% is too high and too much risk.

        A much better argument would be if Registrants were less likely to commit a crime than citizen x or y. But I don’t think that is accurate.

        So I think we are left with the argument that using citizen x or y instead of a Registrant does not change the danger to anyone, in any useful or usable way. THAT is why these “restrictions” are useless and stupid.

        • AJ

          @Will Allen:
          “A much better argument would be if Registrants were less likely to commit a crime than citizen x or y. But I don’t think that is accurate.”
          —–
          Actually, (the much derided) Karl Hanson has studies showing the rate of reoffending falls *below* the “out of the blue” rate of the general (male?) public after a certain amount of time. That amount of time is dependent on the initial risk level of the RC, but it seems to end for *all* around 17 years.

          And I say that regardless of what one thinks of Hanson, the courts and States love his work and rely on it. So let’s rely on it to, when to our advantage. To do otherwise is simply a needless opening of a second front. Two-front wars are quite hard to win.

        • wonderin

          @Will Smith
          “I don’t think the 95% thing is a good argument. Because 5% is too high and too much risk.”

          On this we agree and I have commented before that a 1 in 20 chance of having your child or wife assaulted is a lame argument to persuade people to embrace registered sex offenders.

          What people need to realize is that all registered sex offenders are not created equal so the equations are drastically convoluted and the actual risk to the public from the bulk of offenders is negligible. Furthermore, in reality they pose a lower risk than than the general public because they have already faced the reality of their misdeeds and learned from their mistakes.

          How could anyone doubt the truth of my statement when all they need to do is watch the news to learn who is committing the daily registrable sexual offenses.

        • Sick of Government Lies

          @AJ, could it be that some of us feel and think that Karl Hanson is a sham because his Static-99R scam exaggerates future recidivism? In reality, the 17 year period Hanson cites could very well be a lot less. Not to mention, that Karl Hanson’s Static-99R scam gives its “prediction” based on “initial risk level,” so it is not a dynamic “test” (if it can even be called that).

          Karl Hanson’s fan-boy “experts” like to gloat of the Static Scam-99R’s similarities to insurance risk assessments. Yet these same experts also gloss over the fact that insurance risk assessments actually take dynamic risk factors into calculation. Insurance risk assessments are also specific toward measuring the risk to automobile accidents. Karl Hanson’s Static-99R scam, however, is not at all specific — since the Scam-99R does not “predict” exactly what, if any, crime will occur in the future. Furthermore, the Static-99R lumps every sex offense, regardless of severity, together in its sample. On top of all this, “doctor” Karl Hanson — along with CASOMB and SARATSO — has the gall to protect his junk science creation as a “trade secret,” and have all of its “validation” conducted ONLY by his corrupt cronies from Carleton University. Oh, and in the “tiered” registry law, the Static-99R scam is hidden by the name “SARATSO Tool.” So 99%+ of the public will have little knowledge to the actual ponzi scheme that said SARATSO Tool is based off of. The public will foolishly assume the SARATSO Tool disclaimer on the Megan’s Law website — that the SARATSO Tool is “scientific” and “empirical” — to be “accurate.”

          1. In sum, Karl Hanson (who is an *unlicensed doctor* by the way) could have zero credibility. As for AJ’s claim that “the courts and States love his work,” refer to Exhibit 1:

          http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_29290.htm

          QUOTE: “Moreover, during the course of the hearing held in this case, it became clear that the ‘norms’ for interpreting the scores of the STATIC-99 were significantly altered by Dr. Karl Hanson, one of the developers of the STATIC-99, and his associates at the end of 2008, and the beginning of 2009. [. . .] [T]he ‘general acceptance’ of the STATIC-99 in the scientific community for its intended purpose (predicting recidivism rates of sex offenders) has been called into question.”

          2. You also failed to mention that in at least once instance, Fake Doctor Karl Hanson’s work has been rejected because it failed to meet the Daubert standard. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Refer to Exhibit 2:

          http://karenfranklin.com/files/Perren-Ruling-Static99-RRASOR.pdf

          Other than the corrupt validation “studies” authored by the California Department of Justice, CASOMB, SARATSO, and Karl Hanson’s Corrupt Carleton University Crooks, how exactly have the Courts shown their love for Karl Hanson and his Scam-99R?

        • AJ

          @Sick of Government Lies:
          *sigh* New same, same rant, I see. (BTW, I only made it two lines into your tired song before bailing.) I’m curious, where did I impugn anyone’s opinion of Dr. Hanson? All I said is he’s much derided. I made no comment on the validity of said derision. So, why the defensiveness?

          Simply put, I don’t care if Hanson is right or wrong. For me, it doesn’t even *matter* if he’s right or wrong. All that matters in any court case is using data/evidence/research the courts accept. Like it or not, legit or not, that is Dr. Hanson. He can be the biggest fraud in the field of psychology, but if he’s who the courts (and the Government, no less) say is gospel, he’s gospel. Period. Tell me wise fool, what data, what researcher, are you going to use in court to refute Dr. Hanson? Please, enlighten us.

          I would suggest you change your handle to Sisyphus, but that would be unfair to Sisyphus. Nonetheless, you go ahead and enjoy your Sisyphean battle. Fume about and rail against Dr. Hanson all you wish and see where it gets you. Me, I’d rather be using the State’s own expert (real or otherwise) against it.

        • Sick of Government Lies

          @AJ

          You Say: “All that matters in any court case is using data/evidence/research the courts accept. Like it or not, legit or not, that is Dr. Hanson.”

          My Response: Are you saying that Karl Hanson’s Static-99R scam has passed either Frye and/or Daubert standards? Because based on at least two instances, the Scam-99R has failed BOTH Frye and Daubert standards. In one case, Karl Hanson’s Static-99R team disingenuously mocked the defense in initially promising the underlying data to his “trade secret,” only to not keep their word, causing the judge to rule that the Static-99R failed to meet the Daubert standard (and Karl Hanson, and his Static-99R, were subsequently thrown out of Court).

          In case you are uninformed, each U.S. state uses either Frye and/or Daubert standards to determine admissibility of evidence like the Static-99R. Again, in at least two instances, Hanson and his Static scams have failed both. How exactly are you making the case that Karl Hanson’s Static-99R schemes are considered “gospel” by the Court? Sure, given the blatant, unchecked, corruption associated with Karl Hanson and the Static-99R, it may very well happen in the future (and you may ultimately prove right). But as of now, it seems that only the California legislature is misusing the Static-99R. But given the current trajectory, and the lack of legal challenges against Karl Hanson and the Static-99R, sure… you and Karl Hanson may very well succeed in your assertion that Karl Hanson — and his Static-99 scams — are gospel.

          —–

          You Say: “Tell me wise fool, what data, what researcher, are you going to use in court to refute Dr. Hanson? Please, enlighten us.”

          My Response: Notwithstanding the Static-99R’s very basic flaws (i.e. How can 10 questions predict human behavior?), are you seriously oblivious to the amount of researchers, psychologists, and psychiatrists that have spoken out *against* the Static-99R scam? Not to mention, how exactly do you refute Dr. Hanson when he has protected his “data” as a “trade secret?” You also fail to acknowledge that virtually all of the Static-99R scam’s “validation” have been plagued with conflicts of interests.

          Finally, when you mention Sisyphus, could you be projecting YOUR EFFORTS in personally attacking those who (rightfully) “fume” against Karl Hanson and his Static-99R scam? Your deceit is shameless. And Sisyphus was known for trickery. The only thing that wreaks of deceit and trickery is that you, “AJ,” find some kind of perverse justification in bullying others to believe that a 10 question “test” can somehow “predict” human behavior. And that simply because Karl Hanson is respected by some, we are wrong not to support Hanson’s junk pseudo sciences. I disagree with you. And I, along with the few who believe similar to me, will continue to try to do our part to spread the word against this quiet, but dangerously incipient, affront to our Constitution. So shamelessly, just as Veritas did in spreading the truth, I will continue to do my part in spreading the truth regarding Karl Hanson and his Static-99 scams. I see that other people have also shown their grievances toward Karl Hanson and the Static-99R scam — so it would be in true Sisyphean fashion to accuse all Scam-99R dissidents of having the “same rant.” Again, your accusations are you projecting YOUR dishonesty. Funny, yet sad, how the Static-99R Kool Aid drinkers ultimately resort to personal attacks because they can’t handle the truth regarding Karl Hanson and his “static” scams.

          Also, AJ, maybe you should change your handle to “Fake Doctor Karl Hanson’s Knee Pads.” But, then again, that would be unfair to Knee Pads — as Knee Pads generally have some sort of integrity [though in a structural sense].

        • AJ

          @Sick of Government Lies:
          I have no idea what you wrote, as I once again tuned out after it’s blatant to me that you are missing my point. I’ll save myself some time and energy and focus my attention elsewhere. Have a blessed day.

        • TS

          @Sick of Gov’t Lies

          If you are going to say what you (shown below), then please back it up with facts, citing sites, and other items to bolster your argument for others where who are following this thread and forum. It would help your argument and others here who read this forum.

          You said, “…are you seriously oblivious to the amount of researchers, psychologists, and psychiatrists that have spoken out *against* the Static-99R scam?’ ‘You also fail to acknowledge that virtually all of the Static-99R scam’s “validation” have been plagued with conflicts of interests.”

          If you have sources that would refute Hanson, then cite them here for us to read. You list other facts to refute Hanson so why stop? Reading the rest of your replies with an open mind makes sense to me with the data and conclusions you present (outside of the personal meandering against a fellow forum contributor). However, stating what you said without facts is nothing more than hearsay. Gov’ts and courts like numbers and facts when they choose to acknowledge and use them to their advantage, regardless if they are used incorrectly (SCOTUS) or are shady to begin with.

          I don’t like Hanson or his “less than dynamic” methods either (am no apologist for him and neither is @AJ) but realize that you have to contradict what Hanson says with numbers, examples, etc, even when you have to use his data and conclusions to our advantage which could work against him even more. That is what @AJ is saying when @AJ says “So let’s rely on it to, when to our advantage.” Make the poor guy wilt at his own hands (and even the legislative and judicial thinking too), much like those who have used “frightening and high” from ages ago to the point where it is hopefully now on the edge of falling over the cliff to it’s death since it has been disproven (maybe even retired from SCOTUS thinking).

          Putting everything together into a cogent argument as you have and getting it into the right forums (as many times as it takes) could be the very thing that topples him and his thinking. Would rather have you on this side of the Constitutional fight than the opposition and certainly productively on this side than fighting within this forum among other contributors.

          Bottom line, Hanson and all he stands for when it is against registrants stinks like real bull crap being in the sun too long.

        • AnotherAnon

          AJ asked “Tell me wise fool, what data, what researcher, are you going to use in court to refute Dr. Hanson? Please, enlighten us.”

          I’d say quite possibly Karen Franklin, Ph.D. might be willing to testify.
          https://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/search?q=static99

          She has argued long and hard against the propaganda, as I call it, and that is what I think fuels the Static-99 and most of the laws, which explains my contempt for the Halloween fear mongering. Any argument against the propaganda is a good argument in my book. Another example is the innocence projects that call out the criminal legal system’s arrogance. It is all one rancid pie that needs sliced into pieces and put back together like an evidence-based puzzle.

          The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.
          — Thomas Henry Huxley…

        • Joe

          @TS –

          “Bottom line, Hanson and all he stands for when it is against registrants stinks like real bull crap being in the sun too long.”

          What is it he stands for? That predicting future action on prior conduct is STATIC (the test’s actual name) / only valid for a very limited time (stated in the introduction)? As risk, by definition, is DYNAMIC, and certainly so over a person’s life span? What is it that the STATIC-99 says otherwise?

          “Putting everything together into a cogent argument as you have and getting it into the right forums (as many times as it takes) could be the very thing that topples him and his thinking.”

          Exactly what is the “right forum”? This one? Surely you jest. “As many times as it takes” under the guise of a diverse set of authors, attempting to project wide support? Surely takes on the appearance of a “bot” that is so in vogue these days.

          “topple him and his thinking.”

          Again – his thinking is that the instrument is only good for max. 10 years, or even much less and that it has no relevance past that and none whatsoever after 17 years. Topple that – to what end?

        • R M

          @AJ: Regarding “Actually, (the much derided) Karl Hanson has studies showing the rate of reoffending falls *below* the “out of the blue” rate of the general (male?) public after a certain amount of time. That amount of time is dependent on the initial risk level of the RC, but it seems to end for *all* around 17 years.” Can you provide a link to this? I believe it but just need a link. Thanks.

        • Joe

          @AnotherAnon –

          testify where? On this forum?

          refute Dr. Hanson – to what extent? The Static-99 explicitly states it is valid for a maximum of 10 years. Beyond that it makes no claims. Exactly what is the argument here?

        • Joseph

          You’d need to buy a mega pack of knee pads at Costco with the amount of Karl “The Scam” Hanson suck-ups. From what I’ve observed, all the Karl Hanson lovers are made up mostly of “forensic” psychologists, as well as other opportunists, that feel they will somehow benefit from the STATIC 99/R at the expense of others—whether they be “treatment” companies, said pseudo psychologists, or even other particularly slimy registrants (you know who you guys and gals are)).

          As for the STATIC 99/R being considered propaganda: I’m pretty sure the STATIC 99/R could be considered propaganda. The sugarcoated lies that people tell about the STATIC—and Karl Hanson—are so contrary to the truth, that in any other context it would be unbelievable. I don’t know how you can say 10 questions can predict the future, with any modest accuracy, for more than 1 or 2 years into the future. My gut says there is some sort of statistic manipulation—or even POSSIBLE fraud—which would explain why Karl Hanson keeps his data secret. It wouldn’t even surprise me if some of the users that frequent these SO civil rights websites are, themselves, “experts” whose credibility (or even paycheck) depend on the STATIC 99/R being upheld as the go-to scheme for “assessments.” It might explain why some people get so defensive when some of you truthsayers point out obvious flaws regarding Karl Hanson and the STATIC 99.

          Also, it’s been said time and again that the STATIC 99/R has a shelf life of only 2 years. NOT the 10 years that all the suck-ups are lying about. When my car insurance company collects my data, they do it every year. I’m going to guess that my car risk assessments are not good for any longer than 2 years. Same for this so called “…STATIC…” bullshit.

        • AJ

          @R M:
          Here you go: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/law-law0000135.pdf

          You can read the whole thing and get bleary eyed, or just go to PDF page 8 for a chart that pretty much tells you all you need to know. The “Desistance” line is the same thing as the “out of the blue” level. My memory appears to have served poorly, as the chart indicates the “worst of the worst” don’t fall below desistance until year 20. But, they still do. PDF page 9 has a more detailed grid showing the “half lives” of various S99R scores.

        • Olde

          AJ,

          What you cite is another document showing the egregious conflicts of interests that a few people have complained about regarding the Static99R. R. Karl Hanson, David Thornton, Andrew J. R. Harris, and L. Maaike Helmus are all Static99R ‘developers’ who have a virtual monopoly on the Static99 tests’ secret data and methodology. You just proved one of the points that every other person seems to complain about. The lack of transparency. The fact that conflicts of interests are published on the APA website just shows that this type of corruption goes unchecked, even by the APA.

          As for the ‘worst of the worst,’ I’m going to guess that Karl Hanson created that category to help rationalize registration for the ‘worst of the worst.’ Again, what does registration do for the worst of the worst but increase the likelihood that they’ll reoffend? All registration does is ostracize. And when you rationalize registration for some, then it increases the chances that, with time, it will grow for others — and we are back at full circle. That is what the Static99 tests aim to accomplish. Many do not have the foresight to see this (or they ignore this truth, in hopes to personally gain from the ‘fruits’ of Karl Hanson’s dishonest labor).

          100% with everyone calling out this Karl Hanson crook, as well as his Static99 scams.

        • Sick of Government Lies

          @Olde:

          Another disturbing thing is that R. Karl Hanson, David Thornton, Andrew J. R. Harris, and L. Maaike Helmus are — or have been — associated with “Carleton University.” Carleton University, a Canadian institution, had been responsible for much of the Static-99R “validation” and “research” (albeit, non-transparent). It gets worse. Recently, “doctor” Karl Hanson, together with his Carleton University student, Seung C. Lee, wrote another “study” that tries to rationalize the Static-99R for up to — and even over — 10 years. In another egregious example of a conflict of interest, the other authors to the so-called validation include Nyssa Fullmer, Janet Neeley, and Kerry Ramos — who are all government officials/attorneys with the California Department of Justice. This is a document that is helping push Minority Report “science” upon us, courtesy of the corruption at Carleton University and the California Department of Justice:

          http://saratso.org/pdf/Lee_Hanson_Fullmer_Neeley_Ramos_2018_The_Predictive_Validity_of_S_.pdf

  15. David

    So, once again, the Registry is used as a way to exclude a very specific set of individuals. Because it’s so readily available and convenient, everyone can use it for whatever their purposes may be. Here’s what I would like to know: why are they not doing background checks to exclude people convicted of: identity theft, fraud, perjury, aggravated assault, battery, domestic violence, etc. Aren’t such individuals also equally “dangerous” (including having much higher recidivism rates) if (1) they have a conviction for a violent offence, or (2) they have been convicted of an offense closely related to identity and/or character (identity theft, fraud, perjury)?

  16. David

    Along those same lines, I would love to know why individuals convicted of identity fraud do not have specially marked passports. Wouldn’t the border control officers of foreign countries – when verifying an individual’s identity – be most concerned about individuals who have used a false identity in the past??

  17. Tim Moore

    I signed up online, but haven’t received any word back that I know of. Maybe they just threw out applications from those who do not live in the county?

  18. steve

    If there is indeed a lawsuit I hope we starting attacking “frightening and high” garbage.

  19. someone who cares

    Sick ~ I admire all of you who have so much more in depth knowledge when it comes to the registry and all its punishment that goes along with it. I consider myself a person with common sense, and the Static99R is definitely a scam. The name alone says it all…”Static”. Nothing in life is static. The 10 questions will always have the same 10 answers, no matter how long you live a law abiding life, have families of your own, build a career, buy a home, learned from your mistakes, etc, etc. Yet, these 10 questions and answers will try to define you forever? How would that make sense to anybody? I am sure as hell not the same person I used to be 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago. How dare anybody judge anybody by 10 silly questions that have long been outdated and are no longer relevant to anything in anyone’s life? I would like to see Dr Hanson answer some questions about his past and see how he would feel if he was stil judged by some of the mistakes he most certainly has done in his past, LONG ago.

    • Joe

      “Yet, these 10 questions and answers will try to define you forever?”

      IT!. Does. NOT. Say. That.

      “the Static99R is definitely a scam.”

      How so?

      • someone who cares

        Joe ~ I wasn’t saying that the actual “test” defines us forever, I aim just saying that since the answers pretty much stay the same regardless of when they are asked, we are being scored the same over the years. The age of release, ever lived with, index offense, etc, none of the answers can ever change, right? That is, IF you have not re-offended. So even years after, you will still score the same. Am I missing something? When I say “scam”, it is because of the above reason. How can someone still be considered a threat after so many years just because the answers will still be the same as before. Why don’t they add a question like: how many years offense free are you? Now, that would be a question that might shed more light on re-offense, no?

    • Sick of Government Lies

      The Chairman to the DSM (“Bible of Psychiatry”), as well as three other professors from the University of Washington and University of Southern California (USC), seems to think that the Static-99R is a “dubious.” Here are some relevant quotes from an academic article regarding the Scam-99R:

      “Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is dubious, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on unpublished manuscripts and presentations to document methods.

      “Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual. Two core elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. Both of these elements are lacking in Static-99 and Static-99R research reviews. Thus, a call for caution must be sounded when using these tools to make weighty decisions involving an individual’s liberty and the protection of public safety.”

      Published in the The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Also, no Karl Hanson conflicts of interests in this scholarly article:

      http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/3/400.full.pdf

      There is also Dr. Karen Franklin (as mentioned above), as well as Dr. Richard Wollert, who has been very critical to the Static-99R Scam’s many flaws.

      You could put lipstick on a pig, but it would still be a pig. Same with Karl Hanson and his Static-99R scams. You can polish a turd; but it would still be a turd (sorry, “doctor” Hanson).

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 *