Canada: Registrants have the same low re-offense risk as the general public after about 10 years of being offence-free in the community

Source: 7/3/2023

The public is justifiably concerned about the risk presented by individuals with a history of sexual crime. Given that recidivism risk varies across individuals and over time, what level is so low as to be indistinguishable from sexual recidivism risk in the general population (a desistance threshold)? T

Other research has found that most individuals released from a sexual offence present a similarly low residual risk (< 2%) after 10 years of being offence-free in the community. Consequently, applying long-term restrictions (e.g., lifetime registration; Criminal Code of Canada §161) to such individuals serves no public protection function.

Read the full article


Related posts

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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

News like this doesn’t win votes. The public doesn’t care.

More credible evidence that refutes the Conclusive Presumption of universal, lifetime, Frightening and High risk. I’m sure the Supreme Hegemony of Unquestionable Demagogues will ignore this. They will Banish it into non-existence, so they can continue to pretend their is no credible evidence that refutes their Conclusive Presumption.

Easier to just ignore all refuting evidence, then try to explain why it is rational to continue to presume Universal Frightening and High, as the refuting evidence keeps piling up. Just pretend it doesn’t exist, and ignore anyone that questions that. They are, after all, Unquestionable Demagogues!

The SMART project also found that:
* About half of all new arrests for SO happened within the first 2 years of release
* About half of all new SO arrests were people under 30 years old at the time of the new SO arrest.
* Of those over 30, about half will be under 40.
* Of those over 40 about half will be under 50
* Of those over 50 virtual all will be under 65
* About half of all new SO arrests were people that had 2+ previous arrests before their registerable crime
* Better than half the people that were arrested for a new SO were male

This is how you get to this Canadian <1%. after 10 years. Young males, with a history of criminal behavior before their Registration SO commit most of the tiny levels of recidivism. However, they don’t wait to start commiting new crimes. They get right to it, or never. Older men, may wait a few years but seldom more than 5, or start after 50 years old. More than 10 years, or over 65… Miniscule. Both over 65 and more than 10+ years out of prison… anachronism. Always cut in half for women.

Recidivism will continue to drop due to…Non-prod CP. The average person convicted for this was
* 40 at time of arrest
* Few to no previous arrests

Only thing going against this group, most were male. However this group has a higher percentage of females than most groups. Always cut in half for females.

This group will either be arrested for new CP within 5 years of release or never, most within 2 years. Hands on, also within 5 years or never, most within 2 years. Most arrests will be men under 50. Figure out for men, then cut in half for women.

Surprised no one has got to this yet, but one of the authors is R. Karl Hansen…being the paper is from north of the 49th parallel, I’d say it is THE same gent who is chastised here continually by the masses (which I agree with) for his little -99 test.

The answer anyone needs is in the title of the article “There Is No Such Thing as Zero Risk of Sexual Offending“. It does not say of re-offending, but offending which includes those who haven’t been/won’t be/will be caught, i.e., everyone in the population. This is in line with the UT-Tyler study posted here last month where one conclusion was there is no such thing as a zero risk person when it comes to sex offenses because there are those just have not been caught yet or will perpetrate some sex offense. The only zero risk person is a dead person (and in FLA, they somehow continue to offend from beyond the grave).

@EdC – if you open the article link above, then tap on the reference tab of the article, you will find their references for the article which may be of help to you in your work.

But the Static-99 scam says 17 years. And you can’t “petition” if you score “high” on the Static-99R until the 20 year mark.

Someone needs to tell the a*holes in Florida about this proven statistic.