I like the information that is put out on the video. The only thing that I have an issue with is the comment about 97% of new sex crimes are done by people that are not on the registry. This is so far off that it needs to be pointed out. Too many times people assume that because a study says that the re-offense rate for people that they are studying is 3%. That means that they are responsible for 3% of the new sex crimes. This is very far from the truth. I am including a PDF document of something that was supposed to be in the Department of Justice study but got left out intentionally and later came to light.
You will note that under SC sex crimes that occurred in U during the study period of 1995 to 1997 that there were a 187,132 new sex crimes and of that 99.973% were done by people not on the registry. This is the number that we should be quoting or in plain terms. People that were on the registry were only responsible for 27 thousandths of 1% of the new sex crimes.
one other thing needs to be pointed out, and that is that the 27/1000 of 1% was based on rearrest and not re-convictions so in actuality, that number 27/1000 of 1%, should be smaller.
politicians are real good about inflating all the numbers to get their message across. Why these laws should be passed and in many cases using numbers that cannot be supported by any documentation . Now there is enough documentation showing not only the low re-offense rates for people on the registry ( the recent Nebraska study showing 6/10 of 1% per year*) but we also need to push the fact that of all new sex crimes. the vast majority are not done by people on the registry. So what is the purpose of the registry then?
* To my knowledge this is the only study of all the people on a state's registry and their re-offense rates. and not some control group that may or may not be only high risk offenders.
I like the information that is put out on the video. The only thing that I have an issue with is the comment about 97% of new sex crimes are done by people that are not on the registry. This is so far off that it needs to be pointed out. Too many times people assume that because a study says that the re-offense rate for people that they are studying is 3%. That means that they are responsible for 3% of the new sex crimes. This is very far from the truth. I am including a PDF document of something that was supposed to be in the Department of Justice study but got left out intentionally and later came to light.
ReplyDeleteYou will note that under SC sex crimes that occurred in U during the study period of 1995 to 1997 that there were a 187,132 new sex crimes and of that 99.973% were done by people not on the registry. This is the number that we should be quoting or in plain terms. People that were on the registry were only responsible for 27 thousandths of 1% of the new sex crimes.
one other thing needs to be pointed out, and that is that the 27/1000 of 1% was based on rearrest and not re-convictions so in actuality, that number 27/1000 of 1%, should be smaller.
politicians are real good about inflating all the numbers to get their message across. Why these laws should be passed and in many cases using numbers that cannot be supported by any documentation . Now there is enough documentation showing not only the low re-offense rates for people on the registry ( the recent Nebraska study showing 6/10 of 1% per year*) but we also need to push the fact that of all new sex crimes. the vast majority are not done by people on the registry. So what is the purpose of the registry then?
* To my knowledge this is the only study of all the people on a state's registry and their re-offense rates. and not some control group that may or may not be only high risk offenders.
Writer/ researcher for RSO advocacy magazine