In February,2019, Dr. Emily Horowitz, a sociologist and the author of “Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws are Failing Us.” (2015) was a guest presenter on the FAC membership call. Talking points from her presentation are available Here:
Talking Points from FAC Membership call 02072019 call with guest Emily Horowitz
In her presentation, she referenced the study “Frightening and High”: The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake about Sex Crime Statistics by Ira Mark Ellman and Tara Ellman. The complete 14-page article is found on the University of Minnesota Law school scholarship repository:
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=concomm
Background: In Smith Vs Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) the US Supreme Court ruled that the registry was not punishment, but merely a civil measurement reasonably designed to protect public safety. Justice Kennedy, in writing for the majority opinion, recalled an earlier ruling referencing the phrase: “frightening and high.” This ‘phrase’ had previously appeared in multiple ordinances and rulings, prior to the Supreme Court ruling. In fact, in a Lexis search of legal materials, the phrase is found in 91 judicial opinions as well as in briefs for 101 cases.
However, a careful research of the origin of this ‘phrase’ found only one source for this claim, an article published in 1986 in Psychology Today, a ‘mass market’ magazine aimed at a lay audience. There is no supporting evidence, no peer review which is the standard for scientific basis, no noted study for this frequently used yet uninformed and inaccurate phrase. The author of the Psychology Today article is a counselor, not a scholar of sex crimes or re-offense rates nor a researcher. He also added as a contrast, to his equally unsupported assertion, there was a lower recidivism rate for those who completed his program. Anyone who has experience with the consequences of being on the registry knows firsthand the impact of uninformed and inaccurate statements that serve to create unfair and politically motivated laws that claim to provide safety to the public.
The following are some take away quotes and points from this study:
- “The California Corrections Department recently examined cases of sex offender registrants who are returned to prison and found that 92% of the cases were for a parole violation, such as going to a bar or visiting with someone who is also an ex-felon. These are actions that would be legal for anyone other than one on the registry. Less than 1% of those re-incarcerated had committed a new sex offense.”
- The longer one remains offense free, the less likely another crime will be committed. (reference: R. Karl Hanson et al: “High-Risk Offenders May Not be High-Risk Forever”. This is a well vetted body of research by all credible standards, which includes data from 21 studies (a meta-analysis totaling nearly 8000 subjects). Two important notes: This was a study done on HIGH risk and the risk rate decreased over time, which is significant in that most are placed on the registry for life whether high risk or not. In Florida, the authors of the study note that registration is for life and no distinction is made among the registrants.
- For those who are NOT classified as high-risk in the first place, about 97.5% of this group were offense free after five years (also taken from Hanson study).
- Important statement to remember: If the registry’s main purpose is to let us monitor and warn people about those who committed violent, coercive, or exploitative contact sex offenses, we dilute its potential usefulness when we fill it up with people who never did any of these things.
Here are the Hanson Findings:
Karl Hanson Declaration – Summary 5-13
Two rulings worthy of note:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that treating everyone convicted of a sex offense as a likely re-offender, when many are not, violated the constitutional guarantees of due process. The California Supreme Court is also dealing with decisions related to statutes that apply to every offender without regard to their individual circumstances.
The principal common to the California and Pennsylvania decisions is: “Concerns about public safety cannot justify policies that impose serious burdens on entire categories of individuals when many of them actually present little risk, at least when more accurate assessment criteria employing established actuarial measures and the simple passage of time could easily be employed instead.”
Challenges:
Getting courts to understand the facts well enough to apply them properly. The Hanson study finds the re offense rate for low and moderate-risk offenders, who probably account for MOST adults on the registry, is within the same 2-7% range the court attributes to juveniles. (Note: The rationale for getting juveniles opportunities to get off the registry could also apply to adults.)
Summary: “Risk perception may not be about quantifiable risk as much as it is about immeasurable fear. Our fears are informed by history, economics, social power and stigma, myth and nightmares…..When we encounter information that contradicts our beliefs, we tend to doubt the information, not ourselves.”
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has fed this fear, fed by self-interested non experts rather than definitive studies. We can no longer have a casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates. It is high time for corrections!
Note from the Florida Action Committee: Corrections will best be achieved by active participation in organizations such as the Florida Action Committee. If you have not yet joined or made a commitment to work on one of our projects, do so now! We need you! Send Email to: [email protected] With Unity Come Change.
Hello, i was wondering about 2 things
1. How can the us government enact a sex offender registry and before they enacted the law the us gov. Has done study on recidivism rates in 1994 the studies results show 9% and has done a study since 1994 and results show below 5% but they said the reason they need the registry is “high and frieghtening” rate of 80%, the us gov. Knew the truth before and still enacted the registry, thats fraud, if you don’t believe me the studies they did are on Doj’s & Smart.gov website.
2. How can they even listen to John Walsh when he was 24 yrs old he was dating 16yr old (it’s a fact) but the point is nobody even question why a 24yr old was interested and dating a 16yr old child whether they were having sex or not.
So once again another study shows there is no rational bases for these laws. This would appear to be a voilation of the substantive due process of the 14th amendment. If this is so, why aren’t there attacks on these laws on this bases? People can lament all they want here but how far does that get you? Where is the aggressive legal challenges?
FAC’s Ex Post Facto Plus lawsuit challenges Florida’s registration laws on that very basis as well as several others. Read it and you may feel more hopeful.
Hello everyone I’m an ex-offender that was charged as a minor back in 1993. I did two year’s house arrest and 4 years probation. I finished everything in 1999 and haven’t had any trouble since. I have two children who are grown and off to college and recently got engaged to a wonderful woman that accepts me for me. We’re both disabled she had a stroke in 2016 and is in a wheelchair, and I had a severe back injury back in 2005. We live with my family but now they are deciding to go their separate ways and we are having a heck of a time finding a place of our own that we can call home. We want a place of our own no roomates sorry and basically we just want to enjoy our lives. We don’t party or do any kind of drugs and we are quiet, clean and respectful. We make between the two of us $1,582 or $791 each. We’re looking for something/anything really that we can live in and or possibly refurbish if needed. I still try and work and try not to let my back slow me down, I can mow with my riding mower and maintain a decent looking yard with the occasional break. Could someone respond back here with some good news or text me anytime at (813)325-5973 thank you William & Shelley
hopefully, in a year, I will be able to help you i have 1 large 3br rental that i rent out to a hit list co-member. I’m still 18k short on having full funds to build a small 1br home as a rental. disabled here also at hands of drunk driver.
Thank you so much for responding, that would be great if you could help us out. Sorry to hear about your accident, least your still alive to talk about it. Not many D.U.I survivors are luck to survive you know. Once again thank you so much for responding we really do appreciate this. Keep my number (813)325-5973 and if you hear anything let us know thanks again take care…William & Shelley
I can’t travel cause i live on ssi but i am willing to help other ways i have alot of people going on your site for me i write to alot of higher up people. Governors mayors representatives not just in my state but to washington plus give them other research and other things that are very important to registery family.look at espien i came across his case and sent it to washington plus to governor mayor where it first happen yes we are getting closers people thank you
Laws geared towards men, Supressing the vote, building the foundations for The Police State
NO judge wants to be “That judge” who ruled it is in fact punishment. I have the exact same stipulations I had when I was on probation except for the fact I do not have to pay a fee when I register ( Some places you do ) and I have to report 4 times a year instead of every month. Also an officer comes to my house 4 times a year to verify my address. I was arrested almost 30 years ago, am not list as a predator and completed my sentence many decades ago. If it is not punishment, why can I not live where I want to, go where I want to, be free of harassment and damaged to my property? I could write a 100 page thesis on why this is in fact punishment whereas a judge can only say a few words ” It is not punishment just public safety”.
I had an error on my registry and had to hire a lawyer to force FDLE to correct it. As a result of that, it was fixed but as retribution, they immediately changed me from registering from twice a year to 4 times a year. Another lawyer said they could correct it for $1000.00 . Really ?
The only good news is they moved the mean guy who was doing the registry and replaced him with a caring lady who treats us like we are any other person she would meet with kindness.