Myths about sex offenders make policy

here's another good link showing the result of media and political hype that does more harm than good.


Myths about sex offenders make policy


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/14875880.htm

a small sample


"O.K. CARTER
In My Opinion
O.K. Carter
Star-Telegram
O.K. Carter

Sometimes, an urban myth becomes so pervasive that it is accepted as the unquestioned truth in every quarter -- from city hall to police headquarters to the media.

Consider as example the recent hoopla at Arlington City Hall that ended up creating a tough new policy related to how close repeat sexual offenders can live from places where children congregate. The new ordinance requires that repeat offenders live at least 1,000 feet from such places.:


check it out

And how about the most heinous category of sex offenders: child molesters? An estimated 3.3 percent were rearrested for the same crime within three years. That low rate is probably because such offenders have mandatory post-release counseling.

While it may be true that child molesters rarely reoffend three years after their first crime, it is also true that most of them never had the opportunity because they were locked up or on some type of supervision.

The key is to look at the ones reoffending. When I look at the cases I've supervised who have more than one sex offense I see at least 10 years in between offense dates. Don't let the studies fool you. There's a reason they stopped at three years and didn't bother to report the others that reoffended much later.This is why the standard 20 year rule with most registrations is in place.

[mystikwarrior]

There's a reason they stopped at three years and didn't bother to report the others that reoffended much later.
Actually they stopped because of available data (or the lack thereof). Note that the study predates the entire registration/notification scheme.
At this point there are mountains of data. Florida has a 9-year history of registrations. How hard could it be to pull up those 2,700 people that were put on it in 1997 and see if they have subsequently reoffended? Of course the fact that now 9 years later there are 38,000 registrants tells you that those 2,700 original registrants aren't the ones doing all the crimes.
What did OPPAGA find in reviewing the Jimmy Ryce evaluations? That in the history of the Act there had been 12,000+ reviews and only 5% of the offenders who were released instead of held at FCCC went on to be charged with another offense and only 1% were actually convicted of a new offense.
Regardless of the recidivism rate of sex offenders and whether it's 5% or 20%, you can't argue with the fact that there are over 3,000 new sex offenses by first-time offenders every year. Nearly ten per day. Maybe 20% of the current 38,000 will go on to do it again sometime between now and 2050 and we need to do everything possible to prevent those reoffenses. But you get to tell that to the kid that got molested last night by his uncle the non-offender. He'll be happy to know that Florida is going to make sure the uncle doesn't do it again. Of course, he'll just have to get over it and be satisfied that he's the last victim. Never mind what might have been done to keep him from becoming a victim in the first place.
Sorry for my rant here. But we can't see the forest for the trees on this issue. I don't want sex offenders reoffending any more than anybody else. But there are 10 kids a day that are wanting to know where we were when THEY were being molested.

Regardless of the recidivism rate of sex offenders and whether it's 5% or 20%, you can't argue with the fact that there are over 3,000 new sex offenses by first-time offenders every year.

You're point is ....... :?: :?: :?:

It does matter what the recidivism rate is and whether or not it increases over time; hence the need for loooooooooong sentences and registration periods. HELLO!!!

[mystikwarrior]

It does matter...
Yes, recidivism is a factor. It's a factor in all crimes and a fundamental part of any retributive/rehabilitative punishment scheme. But at what point do we decide perhaps our focus should be on preventing the initial offense rather than the subsequent offense? I think the only thing in this world that could be 'better' than an offender only offending once is for him to not offend at all. No victims is better than one victim. Don't you agree?

Funny thing about this particular attempt by someone to use the recidivism rate in arguing against the Arlington law. The law applies only to repeat offenders, who by definition have already proved they have a 100% reoffense rate.

Regardless of the recidivism rate of sex offenders and whether it's 5% or 20%, you can't argue with the fact that there are over 3,000 new sex offenses by first-time offenders every year.

You're point is ....... :?: :?: :?:

It does matter what the recidivism rate is and whether or not it increases over time; hence the need for loooooooooong sentences and registration periods. HELLO!!!...


long!! florida's is for life! unless you get a pardon from the governor and what's the chance of that happening.

And how about the most heinous category of sex offenders: child molesters? An estimated 3.3 percent were rearrested for the same crime within three years. That low rate is probably because such offenders have mandatory post-release counseling.

While it may be true that child molesters rarely reoffend three years after their first crime, it is also true that most of them never had the opportunity because they were locked up or on some type of supervision.

The key is to look at the ones reoffending. When I look at the cases I've supervised who have more than one sex offense I see at least 10 years in between offense dates. Don't let the studies fool you. There's a reason they stopped at three years and didn't bother to report the others that reoffended much later.This is why the standard 20 year rule with most registrations is in place.

ok let's look at the ones reoffending.....look at the article



But is the myth of massive recidivism true? Fortunately for society, the available statistical evidence shows this conventional wisdom to be bogus.

Consider the Department of Justice's 1994 study of 9,691 imprisoned male sex offenders from 15 states.

What the study determined was that, yes indeed, released sex offenders were four times more likely to be arrested for another sex crime than were men released from prison for other crimes.

That bit of information, typically interpreted out of context, is probably as responsible for public fears and governmental paranoia on this topic as anything.

But here's the context: The study tracked sex offenders for three years and discovered that 5.3 percent were rearrested for another sex crime, slightly more than one offender out of every 20.

How does that compare to the general, all-categories-of-crime prison population?

According to the study, of the 272,111 people released from prisons in the 15-state study area, 67.5 percent were "rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years." That's more than 13 of every 20 prisoners released. Now that's recidivism.

" yep got to watch those drug dealers who are selling crack to your children! but of course we don't!....would rather watch that 1 out of 20 who might pat him/her on the butt! and let's not forget the dui's who are running them over in wholesale lots! where's the list showing where they live...and their photo so we can see if they are coming out of a bar or liquor store so we can get out children and ourselves out of the way.?"

And sex offenders?

"Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense," the report noted.

And how about the most heinous category of sex offenders: child molesters? An estimated 3.3 percent were rearrested for the same crime within three years. That low rate is probably because such offenders have mandatory post-release counseling. Though even this statistic is alarming, recognize that, as previously noted, about two-thirds of released male prisoners involved in other types of crime will rob, mug, burgle or extort again.

Incidentally, the majority of sex offenses involving children -- 71 percent, according to Bureau of Justice statistics -- are committed by relatives, friends or neighbors. In short, by someone the child knows.

In that context, the 1,000-foot rule adopted by the council is comforting but essentially worthless. If parents are worried about victimization of their children by sexual predators, the first checklist should be the people they or their children know.


and this last part sumes it up great!.... "comforting but essentialy worthless!...."

This is not a Myth...

Sex Offenders are a major threat to innocent Children.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

The man was employed by the school. He was the coach of her basketball team, and he knew better. Allegedely, this wasn't his only "girlfriend" at the school.

Sounds like a sex offender to me.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

The man was employed by the school. He was the coach of her basketball team, and he knew better. Allegedely, this wasn't his only "girlfriend" at the school.

Sounds like a sex offender to me.

Should be fired but unless there is other crimes involved very rarely prosecuted, just like the sodomy laws and the one in the statutes that says a single women cant parachute on sundays in Florida.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

The man was employed by the school. He was the coach of her basketball team, and he knew better. Allegedely, this wasn't his only "girlfriend" at the school.

Sounds like a sex offender to me.

Should be fired but unless there is other crimes involved very rarely prosecuted, just like the sodomy laws and the one in the statutes that says a single women cant parachute on sundays in Florida.

Would you hire him to baby sit your kids?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

The man was employed by the school. He was the coach of her basketball team, and he knew better. Allegedely, this wasn't his only "girlfriend" at the school.

Sounds like a sex offender to me.

Should be fired but unless there is other crimes involved very rarely prosecuted, just like the sodomy laws and the one in the statutes that says a single women cant parachute on sundays in Florida.

Would you hire him to baby sit your kids?

I wouldnt hire any man to babysit my kids.

[quote="popo":2sv7fpyw]http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

The man was employed by the school. He was the coach of her basketball team, and he knew better. Allegedely, this wasn't his only "girlfriend" at the school.

Sounds like a sex offender to me.

Should be fired but unless there is other crimes involved very rarely prosecuted, just like the sodomy laws and the one in the statutes that says a single women cant parachute on sundays in Florida.

Would you hire him to baby sit your kids?

I wouldnt hire any man to babysit my kids.[/quote:2sv7fpyw]

...... why?

[quote="Anonymous":chqjc966][quote="popo":chqjc966]http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/06/s1b_taylor_0606.html

... and others get away with the crime.

SA's in Florida rarely prosecute the 16-17 yr. old consensual sex charge even though it is illegal on the books if you are 24 or over.

The man was employed by the school. He was the coach of her basketball team, and he knew better. Allegedely, this wasn't his only "girlfriend" at the school.

Sounds like a sex offender to me.

Should be fired but unless there is other crimes involved very rarely prosecuted, just like the sodomy laws and the one in the statutes that says a single women cant parachute on sundays in Florida.

Would you hire him to baby sit your kids?

I wouldnt hire any man to babysit my kids.[/quote:chqjc966]

...... why?[/quote:chqjc966]

I would question their motivations unless it was a family member that I asked myself and he wasnt requesting it. I wouldnt even ask a male family member if he had any hint of that pedophile look most have.

in the atmosphere of fear in this country now...there is no way any man should have anything to do with children...it is just about at the point that you should just keep walking if you see one being assaulted in the street....they might think you were the lookout or something!

in the atmosphere of fear in this country now...there is no way any man should have anything to do with children...it is just about at the point that you should just keep walking if you see one being assaulted in the street....they might think you were the lookout or something!

That might be going too far, but look at how many wives have ruined an ex-husbands reputation by making false accusations about this to get custody or a better divorce settlement.