The recently-released report “Recidivism Among Sex Offenders in Massachusetts & Maine” shows how statistics can be slanted to make people believe whatever you want them to believe.
According to themainewire.com, “The report was funded by a Bureau of Justice Statistics grant, in order to provide policy makers with empirical data on a critical issue of public safety – sex crimes committed by reoffenders.”
But the report includes any arrest that resulted in a conviction within a five-year period from release. This included arrests for sex offenses, violent offenses, registry violations, and any other type of offense.
Part of the problem is that release from a sex offense conviction triggers the criminalization of otherwise-ordinary behaviors, such as failure to timely update a temporary address, that have been shown to have nothing to do with sexual re-offending. These behaviors are usually known as “failures to register.”
Among “Key Findings” on page 2: Maine’s five-year recidivism rate was 43%.
Buried down on page 34 of the report is the statement: “Overall, only 5% of recidivating offenses included a sex offense” for sex offenders in Maine who were released from 2005 to 2019. This is the same Maine study that showed a recidivism rate of 43% on page 2 of the report.
For our math-minded people, 5% of the released inmates committed a new sex offense out of the group of 43% in Maine who committed any type of offense. If you were to look at the entire group of people released in Maine (661) who had previously committed a sex offense (with some re-offending and some not), it would not be 5% of the entire 661 people used in the Maine study.
5% of 43% of 661 = 14 people leaving prison for a sex crime and committing a new sex offense.
What percent of the total people (661) in the study, with some committing an offense and some not, is 14 people? Answer: 2%
Yes, 2% of the 661 people released from prison for a prior sex offense in this Maine study committed a new sex offense.
Is this made clear in the report? Absolutely not!!!
The problem with this report is its use of the word recidivism – a word that is not defined with uniformity throughout various studies. Even this report, “Recidivism Among Sex Offenders in Massachusetts & Maine,” acknowledges in the Executive Summary on page 1 that the “…recidivism definitions…can vary across local, state, and federal agencies.”
The raw data in this report is probably correct, but the conclusions being drawn are grossly misleading.
The comment section is still open at themainewire.com.
Misleading you say? Are not all internet sex registry offenses misleading…. but who’s the witness.. something to ponder on.
One wonders who’s naked today in this registry ordeal. Talk about bearing the sword in vain. So who’s trying to put humpty-Dumpty together again and at the same time having a great fall.
If Governments could speak of the back alley lie’s and the ill-ethical way some or most of these registry ruses are done their would be more horse sh@@it to sling. Remember there’s ethical principals in everything. Authorities have gone to far on this registry issue.
I may hold my peace on a pardon but the truth is better than a pardon and authorities are just as much at fault with their gun-ho conning approach. And I do believe they had a decent law at one time in America but its wide open today and law enforcement should enforce all these porno sites on the internet. Even authorities are on probation if you think about it. Are authorities inducing evil in many ways of trickery.
Here is an interesting tidbit.
The Catherine Cutler Institute is run by the University of Southern Maine.
USM was the school where I held the Art Protest when USM took down three paintings from an on-campus art exhibit because they were painted by a Registered Person.
This report is not just poorly written. They use degrading terms like “child rapist” and “child predator.” if you look at a naughty pic of a teen online you’re a “child predator” going by their definition.
This is a lousy report from a crappy school that freaked out over paintings from a Registrant.
Appreciate Jack’s point, but I think we want to resist the temptation to tell ourselves that, if we just made the right legal argument, we could defeat the registry in court.
The hard part about defeating the registry in court is not, making the right argument (the lawyers fighting for us already are familiar with the arguments). It’s proving them. That’s one reason that most of our FAC legal donations go towards expert witness fees and deposition costs.
We know that the entire registry scheme is punitive. Its defenders say, not necessarily, as the registry can also promote public safety, they say. Which is nonsense, but can we prove in court that it’s nonsense?
Notice how the cases that have gone best for us lately (MT Supreme Court, PA trial court, Federal 6th Circuit) employed conventional legal arguments but also (crucially) proved them. It doesn’t always work (consider McGuire) but it’s our best shot.
Nothing we do or say is going to change the minds of some judges. That is why some states have wins and others do not. 50 different states and 50 different registry rules. Then throw in Federal rules/laws and not even the judges sometimes know how to interpret the jumbled mess of laws, rules, and regulations.
All ideas from everyone are worth listening to. To say just let the lawyers take care of it cannot be used as a blanket statement. We are more likely to get off individually than to take down the registry as a whole. As many of us know, the registry is about funding, power and control.
Concerning Halloween and Christmas decorations, does anyone else live in Osceola County? We were told by our son’s probation officers that the restriction was only during probation or parole. They said after probation ended, we’d be able to decorate again.
I checked FL Statutes and after reading the decorations clauses several times, my understanding is that the restriction only applies to those “under supervision”. I checked on an attorney’s web site and got the same understanding. I shared it with a neighbor who is a former deputy and she agrees it’s just during probation or parole.
However, we have a rude active deputy neighbor who made a threat several weeks ago when his dog got loose….again….and was harassing us on our walk. I took it seriously enough to contact the sheriff office. The throat concerned Halloween and Christmas.
Anyone in Osceola have any trouble decorating after finishing supervision? We’ve been decorating since probation ended in 2018 but this jerk rattled my cage and I need to be prepared.
We are in Osceola and the PO has told us that it’s only while on probation.
My hope is that people flooded this rag’s inbox with comments related to how misleading this “article” is.
No but i need to flood them. Will pass the word.
He can also be reached here. [email protected]
Let’s see 2% over five years figures out to 4/10 of 1% per year
the only way to really know is to do a study that includes all of the people on the registry in that state and see how many of those actually committed a new sexually related crime over the entire. Let’s say 25 year and then divide that percentage by 25 I’m guessing that it will be well below 1% when we did it in Nebraska it came out to 4/10 of 1% so where’s the high recidivism that justifies the use of the law for public safety when all other criminal reconviction rates come out to more than 25%
I have a question, doesn’t the fact that we have to petition a criminal court judge to be removed from the registry, cry out punitive? Otherwise, we could go before a civil judge? That might just be the game changer in a challenge?
That’s what I like about you, Cherokee. You are always thinking. Someone should file a petition to be removed from the registry in civil court just to see the reaction. The judge could deny the petition, which would be a tacit admission that the civil court had jurisdiction. Or the judge could transfer the case to criminal court, which would directly admit that the registry is a criminal matter. Hmmmmm.
You got me thinking so according to this state government page https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/clemencyOverview.shtml
“For clemency Clemency is the constitutionally authorized process that provides the means through which convicted felons may be considered for relief from punishment and seek restoration of their civil rights. The clemency function is an act of mercy that absolves an individual from all, or any part, of the punishment that the law imposes. This is a power to grant full or conditional pardons, or commute punishment. If an individual was adjudicated delinquent of an offense as a juvenile and not adjudicated guilty in adult court, that person is not eligible for any form of clemency.
There are rules for these procedures, and these powers to grant clemency are vested in the Governor with the agreement of two cabinet members who are also statewide elected officials. The Governor also has the sole power to deny clemency.”
Anything word stand out? The word punishment. But the registry isn’t punishment, yet I have to go to a clemency board to “seek relief from punishment” it’s on their own page, but yet it’s not punishment. Some one should file in civil court and argue this.
Exactly! File it in civil court, then let that judge move it to criminal court, set it on the calendar, and then argue, “if registration is civil in nature, then why did you calendar this in criminal court?”
I just sent a petition to be relived of registration, I sent it to the sentencing court, and they then sent it to the court coordinator in the civil court.
The duty to register was imposed in criminal court, as per Blanton, was part of the combined totality of the maximum penalties imposed upon sentencing.
@Archie
Anyone can use my idea. I was brainstorming one day while doing laundry in my garage and thought of that. Why is this case being heard in Criminal court when they say the registry is not punitive in nature.
I was hoping when I posed that question that someone from F.A.C or a lawyer would pick up on that and run with it. I can’t do that because I graduated from 7th grade three times with honors LOL And I am broker than a 3 wheeled mustang.
It also begs the question, that if the registries are civil in nature, then how can a judge impose criminal sanctions and punishment for someone who fails to comply?
There cannot be criminal penalties imposed on a civil infraction, and there cannot be laws created that make FTR a felony, if the registry itself is civil in nature.
This insanity has to end.
We have to remember the difference between a requirement to register–a civil matter– and a failure to register, which constitutes a felony. Speed limits may be a civil regulatory measure, but excessive speed can be a misdemeanor or a felony in many states.
The question we are considering here is which court, civil or criminal, has the jurisdiction to handle a petition for relief from the registration requirement. A failure to register will always go to a criminal court. Anyone could file a single-page pro se petition in civil court asking to be relieved from the registry requirement. Even if the petition is frivolous and likely to be denied, the jurisdictional line would be drawn. It would be interesting to see how courts in different states rule.
Ed, you said, “…….a requirement to register–a civil matter, …….”. This is exactly my point.
While these legislatures continue to try to make us all believe that registration is a part of the civil process, it carries a criminal penalty for FTR.
This isn’t conducive to following the Constitution.
One cannot have a “Civil Process”, that attaches a, “Criminal Penalty”, to it.
A violation of a civil process is a fine. A violation to a criminal offense is a sentence of jail or probation, still under the control of the Court.
No person should EVER be sent to jail, whether a misdemeanor or felony, for a violation of a civil process.
@ED
To your point, the “Civil” registry, if you even accidently violate the Simplest of rules, you can go to prison for a long time. Failing to register an email address you may have forgotten about could cause you to be arrested.
That arrest then triggers the sex offender act of 1812 (Being silly here) but in all seriousness, ANY misstep of our registry requirements could land any of us in a pot of hot water that could send us to prison for longer than what we served for our actual original crimes.
We are NOT on probation (Many of us), yet we are being treated like we are. In fact, I had less rules when I was on probation than I have now, as a supposed free man. And I am sorry, but I have been before numerous judges and for the most part, when it comes to the registry, for the most part, the judges hear from us, “Blah blaaa, blaw”.
The definition of recidivism is “ habitual or chronic relapse “. So the word in no way could be applied to anything other than a repeat of what the person was accused of originally. In fact it had to have been multiple offenses for the word to even apply to a situation. The term is completely misused in applying it to most on the registry if they were accused of a single crime.
The publisher of this article needs to be threatened with a law suit or rescind and correct the obvious lies it has willfully published. Won’t mention names but certain individuals have recently been accused of promoting false information about the results of an election and there is a public backlash about it. Because of it at least one person lost his life and riots started and property damaged because of it . Lies have consequences. The same can be said of. The lies being promoted about those on the registry. Lives lost, destroyed, property damaged, families torn apart. They must be held accountable.
@David
Any narrative has to show that we are horrible dangerous people, regardless of what our actual day to day activities show. Otherwise, someone might get the idea we are not in fact bad people, thus no need for a registry. No registry means jobs lost, funding lost and haters have to find a new group to harass.
There I said it.
What this says to our Maine registrants is to be careful about registering. They seem to be very aggressive in policing an administrative list of law abiding citizens.
Why don’t they do some actual useful studies like a way to help the homeless. In my area there are so many homeless camps that they could teach the boy scouts a thing or two about building a camp from scratch.
Page 17 seems to show a favorable outcome to this study.
Thanks to whomever put this out. I did the math, too, to “teach” myself (helps for retention too) and this 2% figure is appalling.
Here’s something else: I cannot recall where in the last few months I read that ‘recidivism’ rates vary so widely they even consider subjective factors, such as the opinion of the probation officer as to whether or not the person would reoffend! How one quantifies THAT, I have no idea, but we must constantly remind lawmakers how dishonest the DOC and other paid-study hacks are, and why we must rely on the sober results gained by objective, non-partisan, scientific, peer-reviewed studies.
Wonky math to support a desired outcome. Follow the $
Of course this means to follow the money. There’s money in keeping the people scared of boogeymen all the time.
Yep.
There are lies, damn lies … and then there’s statistics. 😒