Source: cnycentral.com 6/13/25
…
In New York, sex offenders are classified from Level 1 (low risk) to Level 3 (high risk) based on a point system. However, Ahern pointed out that the system’s inability to accurately predict human behavior is a significant flaw.
” Inability to accurately predict human behavior is a flaw.” A bigger flaw is thinking they can control human behavior accurately.
In Oklahoma it’s based on crime.
I’m sorry, this is not a funny topic but take a read of this quote: “She noted that in states like Florida, the registry is available online, providing crucial information for making informed decisions.”
LOL. You mean the registry with dead people on it? And people that moved out of state? Yes, very informed.
Jerks like this guy, ruin it for the rest of us who are trying to live our lives peacefully while being a PFR.
I would like someone to explain how this particular registrant’s most recent offense would not have occurred had he been level 2 or 3. And provide some kind of verification or evidence to support the explanation.
The lady using Floriduh as an example of how the registry should be, well, kind of diminishes her argument. I don’t believe living under bridges & inside mangroves in back of schools, makes things more safe for kiddies
I can accurately predict that when a sex crime occurs or a registrant re-offends lawmakers will rush to pass more inhumane bills. Instead of treating registrants as individuals we all throw under the bus as if we committed their crimes with them. Last time I checked the only person’s actions I can control are mine and mine alone.
The recidivism rate for sex crimes is 3.0-3.5%. It is not 0%. This guy falls into that 3.0-3.5% and he will be in jail for a long, long time.
The system doesn’t treat people that committed actual predatory and violent acts as needed, by putting them in secure facilities, while overreacting by punishing everyone else that has never performed a violent or predatory act.
The “informed decisions” argument is a garbage statement as it sounds more like a forced government perspective of fear.
It’s a manufactured urgency to “check” the registry for a so-called “informed decision.”
Laura Ahearn is part of the problem not the solution.
I think they should remove the people who pose no threat in NY. I.e me who hasn’t lived in the country for almost a decade.😂
Athena, I do enjoy your well-reasoned posts and I will add my thoughts. Jonathan Swift once wrote,
“You cannot reason a person out of something they were not reasoned into.”
In addition to some people finding gray areas intellectually uncomfortable, emotions also play into the mindset of those who support the registry. Discussing anything to do with sex offenses, particularly against children, is uncomfortable for many. I think refusing to accept verifiable data and logical arguments is also a form of denial. Acknowledging that the major danger to children comes from family, friends, teachers, clergy, police, and other trusted associates is unsettling. It is much more comforting to act as if the monsters are “out there” rather than confronting the truth that they are primarily in one’s circle of friends—or even within oneself. In order to reach these people, we have to enter into their emotional space before presenting any data or logic.
I think I once responded to one of your posts pondering how to address the “if it saves one child” argument that is often used. I’ve had some success breaking through by simply agreeing with them. The registry might be validated if a single child is not harmed because of it. Of course the reasons why any given child has not been harmed are impossible to determine or to definitively attribute to the registry. I then counter with asking if the registry harms a child, should it be eliminated. Now THAT can be demonstrated. Many children are harmed by economic issues, bullying, not being invited to play dates, or moving so frequently that they never get a sense of stability. Those harms appear frequently in blogs like this one. Now after they are softened up, logic and data might at least partially get through.
Society is so easily led with fear.
I remember a lower court ruled that the point system and the registry in NYS is capricious and arbitrary and no sound reasoning. I think it was People v. Mcfarland. In that decision, the defendant argued that the SORA RAI does not actually measure risk to re-offend, but instead reflects moral judgments and is punitive rather than regulatory. The court found that the procedures by which people with a sex offense conviction are classified under the RAI lacked any rational basis and violated substantive due process, stating there was no evidence that the RAI provided meaningful information about recidivism risk and that its determinations were essentially arbitrary. However, it is worth noting that the Attorney General’s office did not appear in that case, and appellate courts have repeatedly upheld the validity of the RAI despite such criticism.
There was a PFR who presented rebuttal evidence showing he should be classified as a level 1. The DA and court “over-ride” the evidence (they can by statute) and made him a level 3 SVP. He has been living in society for years w/o any offense, volunteering, working and living a law abiding life. He still has a problem getting his level lowered. He is the opposite of his level, but he was given his level not because of his offense that shows that he was a low risk (Static 99, etc), because the DA and courts wanted to punish him.