Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

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

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Given that racism is hard-baked into our socio-political system, any punitive measure is going to have a racial bias. POC men, especially, face the indignity of being stereotyped as inherently more aggressive and unstable than white men http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550614553642, while POC boys have their childhoods circumscribed and are “adultified” when facing charges https://www.thenation.com/article/price-transgression/

As an aside, this racial bias is also, therefore, more evidence that the registration system is punitive and not “administrative”.

The poor get a higher tier level. I was scored a NY level 1 but after a lot of time and money, my attorney was successful in arguing me to a level 1.

The danger of Minority Report-style ‘risk assessments’ such as the Static-99R cannot be overstated. Like Ohio’s risk assessment, California’s Static-99R/Saratso scheme is *also* ‘overly weighted towards prior criminal records.’ Assuming that this paper is accurate in claiming that risk assessments are racist: not only is the Static-99R potentially racist; but there is also the fact that the Static-99R is discriminatory against gays, as well as ‘non-contact’ offenders. Some experts and studies have claimed and shown that non-contact offenders have lower recidivsm rates, as well as greater amicability to counseling. If true, why has this discrepancy not been ironed out with the great ‘Doctor’ Karl Hanson? Too many things do not make sense here. Karl Hanson’s discrepancies are very fishy if you ask me. Almost as IF the Static-99 ‘tests’ were intended to cleverly exaggerate by design.

To elaborate more on the dangerous encroachment of risk assessment instruments on civil liberties, the ACLU — as well as other civil rights activists — recently turned *against* bail ‘reform’ because it finally realized the danger in relying on said risk assessment tools. If we put aside the corrupt special interests that support the Static-99R, how many years will it take for our movement to realize the impending dangers that lurk within the Static-99R/Saratso scams?

https://reason.com/blog/2018/08/20/aclu-turns-against-california-bail-refor