AZ: Data suggest changes for sex offense policies

Source: 5/18/23

Based on a false premise, Justice Anthony Kennedy asserted in the case of Smith v Doe 538 U.S. 84 (2003) that “the risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is frightening and high,” as high as 80% for those who are untreated. This, he contended, made it vital that the public be able to identify these individuals in the interest of public safety.

Justice Kennedy’s statements were wrong then and they are wrong now. They were based on an article in a lay publication, Psychology Today, not a peer-reviewed journal, that was written by a sex offender counselor, not a researcher, who earned his living selling his counseling program to prisons. The author has since disavowed these numbers and said they were never meant to be used as a basis for any type of judicial ruling.

It is now clear, based on decades of data, that those who have committed sexual offenses rarely recidivate. Indeed, while the recidivism rate for drug offenses exceeds 80%, study after study finds the three-year recidivism rate for people who commit sex offenses to be 3.5%, much lower than that claimed by Justice Kennedy. This low recidivism rate is in line with the finding that the vast majority of sexual offenses — as high as 95% — are committed by people who are first-time offenders and thus are not on the registry at all.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

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


  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. 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.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. 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.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. 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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

We here in AZ have no vehicle available to petition to get off the Registry. I have been collecting case law to start writing a petition to try to be removed from the Registry based on the South Carolina decision. I hope it gets granted as my wife and I want to travel and I don’t want to be banned for life from Mexico where her family lives.
Plus, I would like to visit Scotland where my Ancestors are from.

Another well written article that needs to be sent to SCOTUS, CASOMB, et al showing the real facts of the matter in addition to other data, but of course, they know this already.

Went to ASUdecades ago, bought a home in NW Valley and had to move back to Cali for Spouse’s work. As a super conservative state bending with more and more Demo’s, getting better, NO PUB there including the Walter Conkrite School of Journalism Adj or not Prof would NEVER Cover this.

We thank this Author for pointing out the 5 W’s and FACTUAL INFORMATION, Thank YOU ! And you editorial staffers for printing this online and print. R A R E. I worked in Scottsdale for a PubSafe Co. for a decade and back then no web site and reg was ONLY visit intially and fingerprinted alike all, back then DPS was NOT handling that, only Counties such as Pinal. Hopefully SOMEDAY it will
go to the live evening / daytime TV News and the largest AZ pubs. Gannet News Corp. So much cheaper there including housing. CALI is TOUGH and challenging with a new Tier System that still needs much work, that ACSOL is working on, EveryDay! Come to Zoom Meetings online monthly.