Source: post-journal.com 9/2/25
No one knows if an effort to update the way New York decides how likely a sex offender is to reoffend will move in the state Legislature this year after more than a decade of inaction.
Part of the bill is intriguing. Sen. Liz Krueger, D-New York City, and Assemblywoman Pamela Hunter, D-Syracuse, say the form most commonly used to assess a convicted sex offender’s danger to the community upon release is the Static 99/R, which aggregates criminal history as well as demographic characteristics to assign a a convicted sex offender a level – the higher the level, the greater the likelihood the offender will commit another offense.
The problem is New York state hasn’t studied how accurate the Static 99/R is at actually predicting the likelihood that a sex offender will reoffend. That’s one reason Krueger and Hunter – and other legislators who have sponsored this bill over the past 13 years – want to take action. If the Static 99/R isn’t a good predictor of future behavior then something new should be devised.
What troubles us is the second part of the bill, which would…
Good grief…more fearmongering by the press…you don’t need a bill to do this study, just do it already. Any statistics class could look into Static-99 with reason and with the right people to see it is not being used correctly and reaching outside the state for more info is not the right course of action here.
Invoking actuarial data in the second part of the bill is independent of the first part and makes sense as well. It actually could be used for business insurance rates calculations to show PFRs truly aren’t the problem people think they are and would make employing them easier. I know, I know, logic and commonsense to lower homelessness among PFRs…what am I thinking?!
Dr. Emily Horowitz needs to be in on this one with these folks.
If the static 99R is not a good indicator of future behavior then something else needs to be devised. The only good indicator of future behavior is lawmakers coming up with more junk science and laws to soothe their feelings instead of looking at evidence. New York and any other state doesn’t need a study to prove the static 99r is pure crap and perhaps change in a person is a better indicator.
The Static-99R consists of 10 questions. The answers and scores will be the same over the years, so how can anyone of some intelligence think it can be a predictor of risk? The score remains the same, even if the person were in a coma, wheelchair bound or in a nursing home. You can’t tell me that person can still be considered high risk. Secondly, in some cases, if the person with a score of 6 would commit another crime at the age of 60, he/she would actually drop one point to a 5, so no longer “well above average risk”. How does this make sense again? It doesn’t. Thirdly, here in CA, a person’s score could be a 6, yet before the new law, that person was not publicly listed because their offense was considered one that could by law not be publicly disclosed, despite the score of 6. Fastforward to the new Tiered Registry law, that same person is now in Tier 3, the highest Tier, solely because of their score, which was not an issue before the new law. So, for 15 something years, that person was not considered a threat, but now is a threat to the public? None of this makes sense at all. Lastly, Karl Hanson himself criticized how the Static-99R is being misused by not considering the offense free time. It was intended to be used along with the 10 static questions, and the offense free time is an important part for the overall risk assessment. After only 2 years (per Hanson), the initial score is roughly halved. In Oregon, there were several cases that were won due the offense free time not being considered by the Parole Board. One of the cases was “SoHappy vs Oregon Parole” (need to verify exact case name), but there were others that were won, too. Maybe, we can get with the Public Defender’s Office to see if they would take on a similar case here in CA and use the Oregon arguments. In Oregon, it was also a Public Defender who won these cases. Thoughts?
They all need to stop the BS already and go by the American law institute’s recommendations. They’ve done all the work and the system is ignoring the facts.
I wonder if the changes if they happen would fo anything for those of us stuck on their register who don’t even live in the country anymore.
I’m literally 0 threat to anyone in the US.