But the problem goes much deeper than that. Kevin has made the accusation that people like us would refer to the California Sex Offender Management Board as "pedo enablers" because they are trying to "make sense of the laws". Here are two things Kevin has failed to consider. One: a person speaking about the issues is not representing the Board itself, they are speaking in an activist role and stating their own personal opinion and their words are not a reflection of the policies of the Board. Two: When a so-called expert agrees with ONE thing Mary Duval says that does not mean they agree with everything Mary Duval says and yet Mary Duval takes the agreement with the one thing she said to mean validation for ALL of her beliefs.
The California Sex Offender Management Board has made recommendations however. Most of which conflict directly with what Mary Duval is advocating. They in fact do recommend things such as GPS monitoring, use of polygraphs, residency restrictions for high risk offenders, child safety zones and civil commitment if only two professionals agree. They don't recommend abolishing the use of every single form of monitoring and restricting of sex offenders as Mary Duval does - the truth is that they don't recommend abolishing ANY of them. They recommend strengthening them and making them better.
The most important thing California can do to reduce sexual recidivism is to implement the full Containment Model, requiring communication between an approved treatment provider, a supervising parole or probation officer, and a polygraph examiner. This approach would be victim-centered, guided by policy that protects victims and prevents future victimization.Regarding community notification the California Sex Offender Management Board says:
Alerting the community of the presence and the address of a sex offender acts as a containment tool of supervision. Effective containment strategies help to limit an offender’s contact with potential victims.And:
Each registering agency should make compliance with the state’s registration laws a priority, regardless of budgetary concerns.Mary Duval says that sex offender treatment helps over 95% of offenders who receive it. I wonder which expert she got that statistic from. Perhaps she would be so kind as to "educate our ignorance" and tell us where she learned this because I've not seen anything like that in any of the publications I read. But - the California Sex Offender Management Board did publish a nice summary of the different studies done on the effectiveness in reducing the rates of sex offender recidivism. Some of them showed a slight reduction, Karl Hanson's showed a 5% reduction, some showed no reduction at all - but the highest reduction that ANY of them showed was 40%. Which one of these should we believe, if any? Does the methodology and reliability of a study have any bearing or should that only relate to whether or not the researcher was an "expert"? The California Sex Offender Management Board said:
One of the few studies known for a superior experimental design was California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project. Final results of the relapse prevention program over an 8-year follow up period found no results for the treatment group in reduced recidivism rates.But what about recidivism? It seems we always come back to this as those people intent on proving something which is not true stubbornly and stupidly hold on to a DOJ recidivism statistic which does not accurately reflect recidivism and they KNOW IT. Admitting the truth of the matter however would disturb their agenda. So, let's again go to "the experts" - you know, the ones Kevin says we should listen to and see what they have to say. The California Sex Offender Management Board spoke of a study by Meithei, Olson, and Mitchell (2006) that followed 38,000 released prisoners in 1994 and found that sex offenders recidivated with a new sex crime less than other criminals. In fact that study said that 56% of property offenders committed another property offense while only 26% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime. The California Sex Offender Management Board says:
Nevertheless it remains true that sex crimes can have such a devastating impact on their victims that even “comparatively low” recidivism rates are still unacceptably high and efforts to reduce them even further are deserving of considerable investment of efforts, resources and funding.What do you think about that? Do you think 26% recidivism with a new sex crime is a low number? Well, sure compared to thieves I suppose it is - lower, but does that make it low? Do you think that one in four sex offenders re-offending with a new sex crime is acceptable? Do you think that's a low number?
One of "the experts" that Kevin and Mary Duval were recently impressed by was Kate Thompson from John Hopkins, who went on a radio show and told a politician that he had misinterpreted Karl Hanson's recidivism study. In fact she said that Karl Hanson's study actually showed the rates were very low "especially for child molesters". Does that strike you as odd? Listen to Karl Hanson speaking on the subject:
"On average most sex offenders are never caught again for a new sex offense, after five years, between 10 and 15 percent of sex offenders are detected, often convicted, of committing a new sex offense. If you follow them for ten years the rates go up somewhat, if you follow them as long as we’ve been able to follow them, which is about 20 years, the rates go up to somewhere between 30 to 40 percent of the total sample will eventually be caught for a new sex offense."And take a look at his chart:
Does that look like reoffense rates for child molesters are "especially low"? Those with boy victims - 23% recidivism after only 5 years, and 35% after 15 years. And consider these are the KNOWN reoffenses. Does that look "especially low"? Why would a seemingly educated woman have made such a statement?
The California Sex Offender Management Board says:
WHAT IS THE “TRUE” RATE OF SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM?ATSA - (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers) says:
Underreporting of sex offenses is another factor that influences the accuracy and reliability of recidivism rates of sex offenses. Theoretically speaking, the true rate of recidivism may have been and will always be unknown since a significant number of sex crimes are never reported by victims or are undetected by the criminal justice system. The recidivism rate is normally only estimated from officially recorded crime statistics. Therefore, all recidivism rates, including those for sex offenders will be underestimated for one reason or another.
Because not all sex offenses are reported, it is difficult to accurately measure the true rate of repeat offenses. However, based on convictions for sex offenses, Hanson (2006) estimated the following rates of recidivism:
Regarding recidivism in California, the Board says:
- There is no good source of statewide data tracking rates of reports, arrests, charges, prosecutions, outcomes and dispositions related to sex offenses. It is, therefore, nearly impossible to ask and answer such questions as whether increased sanctions in California decrease offending, decrease reporting, decrease satisfactory plea bargains or have other unintended consequence.
- No information is available at this time regarding sexual recidivism for sex offenders on probation in California.
It has come to the attention of CASOMB that there has been some controversy about the dissemination, use and possible misuse of some draft papers about recidivism which had been distributed and discussed at Board meetings and which had been posted on the CASOMB website for a time. This statement is an attempt to clarify the matter and preclude any misuse of these two papers.Of course none of this explains why Sosen - attempting to back up their claim - would quote Anderson Cooper saying sex offenders had lower rates of recidivism than other criminals - as though that had any bearing on how many sex offenders DO reoffend. But seriously... Anderson Cooper? I didn't realize he was a recidivism expert. They sure got one on me there! Blind-sided me! On the other hand, anyone can clearly see that I must be one of those "uneducated ignorant sheeple" turned rogue vigilante out here flapping my lips trying to educate people about the misinformation Mary Duval is trying to educate them with. For God's sake, beware.
CASOMB wishes to state clearly that the papers in question have never been officially approved, sanctioned or published as finished statements by the Board. In fact, precisely because they are regarded by the Board as being misleading and easily subject to misinterpretation, they should not be seen as anything but provisional drafts reflecting the Board’s work process – a process which is not now and which may never be completed - due largely to the elusiveness of the data which would allow the Board to produce a complete and acceptable statement.
Mary Duval refers to us as "Vigilantes" who will "bring the registry down" so I strongly suggest she continues reporting these evil acts of disagreement. I implore Mary Duval to print this one out too and mark it VIGILANTE and send it on in with everything else she printed....and I do mean EVERYthing. May I suggest using bright red ink for that extra little attention-grabbing Zing! Perhaps Zman will lend his yellow highlighter. Have no worries, I'll have more to print shortly. Perhaps we can "educate your ignorance" after all.