Will, I agree. These websites who have a one sided opinion with no user interaction from the general public should not be considered a source for information and should be suppressed from distribution as they are not legitimate sources for information. CDCR for example is a legititate organization which knows first hand the numbers and thus as a government agency is required to share that information with the public and so we can take it for what it is at face value. We can’t trust CDCR completely so why would we trust a news website or random blog more? We shouldn’t.

Gail,

Based on the email conversation I had with Ron, his ‘core’ reason for why he doesn’t want to believe any scientific studies is all because he thinks sex abuse is completely underreported. We both know that even if we assume 300-400% more sexual abuse of any kind versus the statistics, this still places these types of crimes at the bottom of re-offense rates compared to other crimes. I am not sure what further rebuttal there is for his skewed views.

Under the 14th amendment laws have to have a rational based. Given all of these studies about recidivism to my thinking there is no threat to public safety therefore no rational bases for these laws. It is my understanding that is a substitutive due process claim. Justice Hardin in a dissenting opinion arguement in the slaughter house case in 1877 established the concept of substantive due process has been used in the 1954 brown case and other cases before the court to over turn laws. The sixth circuit use it to declare the Michigan law unconstitutional. These are civil regulations and should be challenged on the bases of them not being rational therefore having not just cause for their existence.

FAC you are 100% correct just as I pointed out in another post he may actually be continuing his criminal activities of what may be fraud depending on Florida and US Laws since he darn well knows the statistics even his daughter has them posted on her website that he also profits from!

He doesn’t genuinely believe in this, any more than he believes in puppy mills. He benefits financially from his client (GEO Group) getting government contracts for incarceration and monitoring and his daughter’s charity (Lauren’s Kids) getting money from the state.
The only way he can get away with passing the laws and getting the state funding is if he does his fear mongering shtick.
Of course he wouldn’t mind if registrants get locked up forever, GEO gets paid to lock them up! More money for him.
Of course he needs to make everyone fearful of the boogey man. That’s how his kid’s charity gets millions from the State.

A quick Google search says Florida is home (you and I know the registry contains many people who haven’t been to Florida for years though) to 69,654 registered sex offenders.

So of those almost 70,000 people you would select any offenders with more than one unique conviction date.

Those with successive conviction dates would then have to be researched to filter out offenders who were subsequently convicted of offenses predating their first sexual conviction.

What you’d be left with is a list of all KNOWN sex offenders who were determined by the state to have beyond a shadow of a doubt committed a new sexual crime and at what interval.

All recidivism would be measured from the point the state officially intervened in an offenders life.

The difference between statistics and probability is that statistics uses a sample to extrapolate a trend in a community whereas probability uses a known community to determine the likelihood that one member of or a sample will have certain trait.

The state has identified 100% of all convicted sex offenders on any given day but researchers are trying to forward predict the recidivism of the whole from a sample instead of backwards calculate the probability from the known data.

Don’t ask me though, I just passed statistics, I don’t do it for a living.