CA: Did California Authorities Suppress Research on Sexually Violent Predators?

[thecrimereport.org – 8/3/18]

State laws that allow sexually violent predators to be locked up even after they have served their sentences are based on questionable assumptions that they continue to pose a danger to society, according to a study published in the American Criminal Law Review.

The study focused on California where, according to the authors, research indicating that sexually violent predators (SVPs) are less likely to re-commit crimes than other offenders was suppressed because it challenged the constitutional legitimacy of the state’s SVP laws.

The research in the mid-2000s by Dr. Jesus Padilla, a clinical psychologist at Atascadero State Hospital, a California maximum-security institution that houses mentally ill offenders, found that just 6.5 percent of untreated sexually violent predators were arrested for a new sex crime within 4.8 years of release from a locked mental facility.

But the research was halted and its findings hidden in what, in effect, was an attempt to “bury” information that might challenge the constitutional basis for the $147.4 million program operated by the California Department of Mental Health that supervised the involuntary commitment of SVPs, the study claimed.

Read more

 

 

Related posts

Subscribe
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.  
 

15 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Considering that the Static-99 exaggerated recidivism by 500% to 600% – and the state worked hard to “suppress” this evidence – why would we ever trust the State of California ever again when it comes to pushing these pseudo “sciences?”

10 questions can “predict” a person’s future? GTFO!!!

““If the Court had asked what the basis was for this conclusion, they would have been sorely disappointed,” the study says. “We searched the legislative minutes for the 1994 Kansas law and found no citations to data on prospective danger.””

Can we ask the court to find the basis for this. That way it will be in the court record?

“If the Court had asked what the basis was for this conclusion, they would have been sorely disappointed,” the study says. “We searched the legislative minutes for the 1994 Kansas law and found no citations to data on prospective danger.”

You mean something like the following that the AG has until the 24th to respond to?
https://ufile.io/k6bfv

And these questions…
1. that Defendant does not have any specific information to contradict the statements in the Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 which states that, “A closer look at the scholarly research reveals that almost all studies show a relatively low recidivism rate for sex offenses as opposed to other crimes”;
2. that the defendant does not have any specific information to contradict the statements made on Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 which states that, “Danger Posed by Registered Sex Offenders and Public notification of registered sex offenders is rooted in the belief that there is a substantial risk of recidivism among sex offenders” “This belief is repeated in the legislative findings and declarations stated in this bill.”;
3. that Defendant’s own supporting declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (see, ECF No. 8) page 16 states in capital letters, “IS THIS PROPOSAL BASED ON A WRONG ASSUMPTION THAT THESE OFFENDERS POSE A HEIGHTENED RISK FOR RE-OFFENDING? DOES THE UNIQUE NATURE OF SEX OFFENSES AND THEIR HARM TO VICTIMS MAKE THIS INQUIRY LESS E RELEVANT?”;
4. that the California legislature did not specifically consider any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender recidivism rate data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290.46;
5. that the California legislature did not specifically consider the efficacy (the term efficacy used here is defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result) of the California Megan’s Law Website during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290.46;
6. that the California legislature did not specifically consider any California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sex offender recidivism rate data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290 et. seq.;
7. that the California legislature did not specifically consider the efficacy (the term efficacy used here is defined as the ability to produce a desired or intended result) of public notification of sex offender registration data during any legislative process specifically relating to California’s Penal Code § 290 et. seq.;

Now I guess I might have to come up with some more RFAs to address this issue just to get it in front of a judge and on the record…

IDK if this posted because I do not see it as waiting for moderation so here is a snippet with the point.
So you mean questions like the ones at the following links that the AG has until the 24th to answer?
https://ufile.io/k6bfv
https://ufile.io/b0lpm

Oh I think I will have to come up with another set of RFAs addressing this issue as well just to get it on the record for others whom may wish to challenge the SVP and civil commitment statutes…

I would say this article is just another piece of evidence that so laws are purely punishment not based on any rational evidence as you said in a previous post. Padilla could be a good resource for you.

Forget SVP’s for a second, this suppression of empirical evidence is true about the entire sor scheme. I think this story, if true is huge in our fight.

Of course they hid the real results! How else do you feed the machine?

what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled.
Micro stamps do not exist and cannot be made in accordance with the California Law they ruled in favor of.
So when that was brought to their attention they replied:
PAY ATTN:
“Laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”
PURE INSANITY…Read IT AGAIN…“Laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible.”
SOUNDS LIKE THE REGISTRY TO ME….Que No?