Friday, March 02, 2012

Hundreds of sex offender registry web sites drop bogus recidivism statistic

Offender Watch Systems runs hundreds of sex offender registry web sites across the country, both on the state and local level. This includes several counties in NY. Each of these web sites contains a presentation which states: "50% of sex offenders re-offend."

I posted an article in 2008 about this bogus statistic and my communications with the Vice President of Offender Watch Systems.

A few days ago, Tom Condon in a column in the Hartford Courant questioned why the Connecticut Sex Offender Registry web site was giving a 50% recidivism figure when a recent Connecticut study showed the actual recidivism rate was 2.7 percent.

No doubt this caused Connecticut to look into this bogus statistic. The result was that Offender Watch Systems dropped this statistic from the Connecticut site and also from the hundreds of other sites that use their presentation and service.

This is a long sought after victory. I and others have been writing the agencies that have been broadcasting this bogus statistic for years with no effect.

The use of this bogus statistic illustrates the larger lesson that there is much to gain financially and politically from fanning sex offender hysteria.

5 comments:

Erik said...

David, Great article. Here is what is posted on the Missouri Highway Patrols website for their sex registry.


Opposition To Sex Offender Laws

With any newly enacted law, there is usually opposition and questions as to whether the laws are constitutional at the State and Federal Level. Some general questions raised are:

Do the Sex Offender Registry laws violate due process of rights?

Should the offender's punishment stop after their sentence has been served?

Do sex offender laws involve possible violations of the Ex Post Facto Clause?

Do sex offender laws create double jeopardy?

Do they enact violations of the Eighth Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment?

Because sex offenders were more likely to re-offend (Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 198281, 2003), lawmakers felt this constituted more regulation. However, critics of the law state it adds a penalty to the crime that was not there when the offender was sentenced and the laws inflict degrading and inhumane treatment of the offender.

They are using 2003 Dept of Justice statistic?

Is this a correct statement that they have on their site?

Respectfully, Erik Henson

Anonymous said...

Erik. You as a sex offender yourself cannot subjectively comment on these laws. So you get punishes serve your time and that is it? Do you realize the affects on a molested child as they grow up? They have to live with the memories of the assult the rest of thier life. So should you. And I am talking from experience. My stepfather molested me from the time I was 10 to 15. It has assulted my memory all my life. I am now 39

James said...

You as a victim are equally unable to be subjective. Sex offender laws apply to all sex offenders not just child molesters.

Anonymous said...

Hey hey hey, let this be a "lesson" to you, Erik. Your own ISP address uniquely IDENTIFIES you!! It shows up on every website you visit, including blog sites and forums! All somebody's got to have is the "know-how" and they can find out who it is that posted the offending comment!! Yeah, "OUCH!" That's no doubt how Mr. "Anonymous" learned that you are a sex offender! Next time, you'll blog using a TOR search engine. Those work much the way PROXIES do. That will make it much more "difficult" for folks to find out who you truly are! Also, I just BET you were dumb enough to use your "REAL" first and last name! Mr. Henson, if that's true, and you (as a registered sex offender)were not supposed to be going "online," you may have put youself in some SERIOUSLY HOT AGUA! For your sake, I sure hope you were "smarter" than that!*** And no, E-Mail identities are no protection. Your own ISP address will pull that "cyber-mask" right off of your digital FACE! - Albert.

Anonymous said...

Can you say "BUSTED" Erik!? -- Scott.