It can be used in court by our expert witnesses, who can prevent the state’s attempts to rely on DOJ’s characterization here.

@Jacob

I am familiar with them and call for all to get them. Risk is not based on emotion and fear at all. Having had two of them seven years apart, they are a multitude of questions from various assessments to provide a score in the end using the basic sub-scores of the assessments. The high-risk individual is one who has the scores to prove it and are the ones the state needs to take a serious look at before deciding their next moves. The problem is the broad brush strokes used to paint everyone the same without looking at each person on their own.

I would guess part of the answer may be that I am free to send something and not to rely on others. Which would make sense as well. But I am wondering if this is something to even do? Or is done?

There are evidence-based methodologies for risk assessment. I’m no expert in them. It’s really a question for a researcher or treatment provider. There is always room for more scientific investigation, but we can’t pretend that it’s never been scientifically investigated. We know that one variable, for example, is, how long has someone been back in the community without sexually re-offending.

What risk assessment often is NOT based on is emotion and fear, because the emotionally fearful tend to paint all registrants with the same broad brush and don’t even think as far as risk assessment.

How do you determine a high risk person? Is the crime related specifically to the person and their perceived risk? Are they actually correlated? Should there not be more scientific investigation individually than overall broad strokes of characterization based on emotion and fear?

GH-S has hit again on points worthy of their serious consideration.

As always, the lie goes half-way around the world before the truth can get 10 feet.

An individual at high risk of re-offending. We’ve all known one.