ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (04/16 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings




CT: Dr. R. Karl Hanson: Sexual offense recidivism risk: Not what you think

[ – 1/15/21]

Dr. Hanson speaks about recidivism data and desistance.

One Standard of Justice, Inc. is a volunteer-based civil rights organization committed to ensuring that persons accused or convicted of sex offenses in Connecticut are treated constitutionally and fairly by the state before, during, and after their sentences. We believe that these persons ought to be accorded dignity and respect as human beings. They are entitled, like all other criminal offenders, to be subjected only to penalties proportionate to the severity of their crimes, to be given second chances where warranted, and to have adequate opportunities for education, rehabilitation, housing, and employment. Communities are safer with rational laws and a focus on prevention of sexual harm and and the healing of all those affected by it.

Watch the video and download PDFs of his research papers



We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
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.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Articles like this are beating a dead horse as far as I’m concerned. We all know the studies. We all know the facts. We all know that studies and facts don’t matter to anyone besides us. You can only buy a political result, you cannot get it with facts and studies.Guarantee if you place this study on a legislator’s desk with a check for $200,000, he would have a new bill on the floor within two weeks.

Agreed. Until empirical evidence is a requirement of the legislative process, or at least requirement to continue so once brought up in court, these studies won’t mean much. Courts have made it fairly clear that the vast majority of their rulings are based on whether or not the law makers can do it and not whether what they’re doing is actually effective.

Sounds like a bill needs to be introduced requiring all submitted empirical evidence be a part of bill if applicable for full consideration of the facts. If they are part of the consideration, including the discussion/debate, then if politicians decide to vote a bill in counter to the empirical evidence, one will truly see their motivations.

@ Way Too Long and SR: I have to disagree with both of you. My experience of lobbying lawmakers alongside other ACSOL members and activists has clearly shown to me the impact that numbers can make – specifically, the numbers of voting constituents who show up in person to speak on behalf of – or against – a proposed Bill. ACSOL was even contacted by one lawmaker who sought support for a proposed Bill and when we all showed up (I believe there were 75 or 80 of us), stepping up to the podium to voice our support for the Bill, it overwhelmed the legislative committee and the Bill was moved forward when prior to that effort, the Bill appeared to have little chance of success. So the number of individuals who show up, stand up, and make their voices heard absolutely does matter and does make a difference.
It’s too easy to be cynical about politics, but you’ll see the amazing difference everyone can make when you start stepping up, speaking up, and taking action. The change can be remarkable – not to mention, very empowering! (And I am speaking from my personal experience.)

Cynicism about the political process is easy to come by today given the way it is carried out with the appearances it has. Money talks, bullshit walks (or gets votes), but at least showing up via pen & paper or by voice (in person or phone) can make a different when allowed to. I think this is where numbers is key because politicians can be taken aback by the sheer support in person they did not expect. Many an enemy was surprised by the opposition’s size when it came to the fight. An informed enemy is all the more powerful when their satchel is delivered full of empirical data that cannot be refuted reasonably.

@David fleur de Lisa, Here-Here! David, the longer the docs the more back up and piss. Reliable Facts than theory vs. A ignorant NON-Factual idiot wrote in Physchology Today back in the day. But, this IS the Guy (not our board mbr) that wrecked Havoc with his rating levels for the current [Thank God Cali does NOT use but nationally will and does to those newer offenders given That Scoring]! Of the SORNA? Help me /us out here Janice when this Pysch Doc was in SF he did NOT go our way with his dangerous judgements that the Pysxh world later followed his Theory’s guess wirk that >>>IS and was INACURATE Of Reid then and carried over to date.
HOPE PAST FOLLOWERS AND GOV WILL NOW READ AND FOLLOW his doctoral notations N O W and revise his update since he’s such a Leader in education guess-work . Help us out here Janice, page
Not in hour 1st 237 pages, but maybe a later chronicles, since he had an ill affect on so many that continued Therapy or even his Group sessions for RC’s/SO even non required to attend group ir individual sessions. Hope he has changed for the better for good seeing the the light for lower not non changeable rates like the past. He might not.of stated frightening and …. like the SCOTUS thats not alive anymore but didn’t help.
Well, now Dr. H. Get it straightened out and Re-Contact all the agencies and others that followed hour statements years back. Your book is Awesome Janice HE NEEDS TO READ IT, let’s send Dr. H. A copy! Or two.

Then maybe the professionals should create comparison charts. Show a couple of charts where the recidivism rates are high, but the crime category is hidden. Then show how much is spent on it. Throw in the sex crime chart, with the crime label hidden, in between as well as how much money is spent. That could be the only way to mitigate some of the fear mongering. Every crime is a crime, but crimes should be judged relatively and not with a blanket penalty or penalties.

An excellent idea, New Person! I will get on that task immediately! Seriously, that’s a very good idea for creating a very clear and impactful visual! (I suspect it may already exist, it’s just a matter of locating it.)

This is s link to an hour long webinar. It includes numerous people, including Senator Winfield from CT. They are discussing the massive amounts of misinformation about people on the registry, that the entire registry is built around a false premise. I only listened to the first ten minutes, I will get back to it, but I highly recommend everyone listen to this. It is encouraging to now that more and more people, and people that are law makers are waking up to the fact that this registry does more harm than good, as even the senator mentioned how many people on the registry just can’t live their lives under it.

This is a very good video and kudos to Ms. Cooper, the host of the interview. Dr Hanson has difficulty explaining complicated ideas into a more simplified ideas, but if he sticks to the research, then he’s on point.

I think Dr Hanson needs to not include the accumulated recidivism rates with recidivism rates broken down in time categories since the incident. It is an unnecessary chart and discussion point as it provides confusion to the masses who cannot differentiate between accumulated vs residual recidivism rates.

I love the last question to Dr. Hanson on how he feels about the low recidivism rates and how law makers disregard the facts to not help reform sex offender laws. The response from Dr. Hanson isn’t great and a bit muddled while trying to say the politician should reform sex offender laws. Dr. Hanson did denote that sex offenders have a lower recidivism rates than most other groups, but, again, it was muddled.

Is this the conflict of interest doc Karl Hanson who fathered the Static 99 (aka “Scam 99”)? As far as I’m concerned, anything that comes out of Dr. Hanson’s “research” is pseudoscience and malpractice.

Very few politicians are elected to office making a science-based argument for anything. If the past few years are an indication of anything, it should be that people vote based on emotion and fear in far greater numbers than on science and facts.

Not until enough work is done to change the emotional charge behind the sex offender witch hunt will things change. No amount of science and facts will make much difference until those seeking public office stop using fear of sex offenders to get elected, and unfortunately that is unlikely to happen. They’ve found the perfect target for people’s fears and it’s likely to stick around for quite some time.

Time to end politicians love affairs with special interests. They represent the people, not who writes the largest check.

Allegedly the For the People Act will help end special interests by making donations known if passed by the Senate and into law. Not sure about it but look it up anyway as I did.

The single most powerful special interest for every politician is themself – they seemingly will do whatever it takes to further their own career and the power it gives them. Very few enter politics for the right reasons, even fewer hold onto those reasons once they get in office.

Because of this, the temptation to accept that big check from whoever is offering it is often too big to resist. With that money comes expectations.

Unfortunately, money will never be taken out of politics. That’s why climate change mitigation efforts will forever be squandered by capitalism and self-interest above the greater good.

So far as this video goes, even when society is presented with new information regarding this subject matter, they’ll most likely balk and never change their opinions. “But tHeY’re sEx OffEndErz!”

Then maybe the only way to make headway is to make it hurt them financially. Not exactly sure how to do that, but if money talks then we need to figure out a way to talk loudly.

Look at how many Republicans in Congress said, President Trump shared in responsibility for January 6th. Within hours or days they moved away from him, now they move closer to him. Republican Senators are more scared to do the right thing and put their loyalty for former President Trump in front. Same goes with registration laws. Not making this political just connecting the dots

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x