Indiana Sex Offender Statistics: How to make good statistics look bad

2-13-2013 Indiana, National:

OPINION: Vigilantism?

Nothing is more frustrating than to read a recidivism study and see negative comments about sex offenders, and then find out that the study shows a low recidivism rate for sex offenders. Its as if the study authors, required to do the study, have a grudge towards sex offenders and searched for a way to make them look worse than other offenders.

They did, using technical violations. But are technical violations new crimes? No! So the authors claim to do a study about recidivism rates, which the world thinks means new crimes, and the study is really about who commits the most technical violations, not new crimes.

The Study in Question: Indiana's Recidivism Rates Compared 2005 to 2007

Quote from Study: "The findings of this comparative report are extremely exciting; recidivism rates are decreasing in the State of Indiana." Then we see "Overall, offenders identified as a sex offender who were released in 2002, 2003, or 2004, returned to IDOC at a higher rate than all other offenders. (pg-7)"

Reality: This study, once you understand how they confuse folks, shows that sex offenders have the lowest (same crime) recidivism rate.

Indiana Defines Recidivism: The Indiana Department of Correction defines Recidivism as an offender’s return to incarceration within three (3) years of their release date from a state correctional institution. Once released, an offender is verified as a Recidivist if they return to the institutional custody of the Indiana Department of Correction for a new conviction or a technical violation of post-incarceration supervision (pg-5).

Discussion: First we must point out that the breakdown of crime types is the oddest we have ever seen (pg-14). Weapons a crime type? Anywhere else weapons are not a crime type, true crimes are committed with weapons, but the weapon is not a crime type. Very odd comparison.

Charts will help us: Excepting the "Totals" lines, all numbers were copied into these charts from pages 12, 21 and 22. The numbers for "Other Offenders" are adjusted downward, by the IDOC separately reported numbers for sex offenders, so that we could do this comparison.

Offender Type	Year	# of Offenders	#+% Ret for Tech Violations	#+% Ret for New Crimes	# Ret this year	#+% Ret for new Sex Crime (pg-22)
Sex Offenders	2002	764	274 (35.8%)	65 (8.5%)	339	18 (5.3%)
	2003	893	284 (31.8%)	98 (10.9%)	382	20 (5.2%)
	2004	845	272 (32.1%)	115 (13.6%)	387	22 (5.7%)
	---	---	---	---	---	---
Total:		2502	830 (33.1%)	278 (11.1%)	1,108	60 (5.4%)

Offender Type	Year	# of Offenders	#+% Ret for Tech Violations	#+% Ret for New Crimes	# Ret this year	#+% Ret for Same Crime (IDOC Doesn't Report This)
Other Offenders	2002	11,045	2,009 (18.1%)	2,286 (20.6%)	4,295	?????
	2003	12,076	2,082 (17.2%)	2,547 (21.0%)	4,629	?????
	2004	12,806	1,998 (15.6%)	2,773 (21.6%)	4,771	?????
	---	---	---	---	---	---
Total:		35,927	6,089 (16.9%)	7,606 (21.1%)	13,695

Since the study focus is on "Technical Violations" one would expect some definition of them, or examples; nothing is found in the study, not even any detailed discussion. Why? All we can see is, sex offenders have more of them -by percentages only- than other offenders; 33.1% to 16.9% respectively. However, -by the numbers- significantly lower than other offenders; 830 to 6,089. If there is any reason to focus on technical violations, I'd certainly be more concerned with higher numbers than higher percentages. See charts.

Recidivism rates for new crimes should be the focus; sex offenders have half as many as other offenders -by the percentages- and about -27 times fewer- than other offenders; 11.1% and 21.1%, -and- 278 crimes to 7,606 crimes. This study focuses on the wrong thing to make society safer.

Then pg-22 tells the real story, sex offender recidivism rate -same crime- is 5.4% over the three years of this study.

The "Quote from the Study" above (pg-7) is way off base, misleading and further damages sex offenders, unnecessarily.

Need anymore be said?

eAdvocate

Sex Offender Registration Requirements to be Challenged

RSOL, Post Office Box 36123 

Albuquerque, NM 87176

www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org
 

December 20, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Larry Neely
RSOL Legal Committee
202-709-3890.
 

Reform Sex Offender Laws Inc. (RSOL) plans to soon challenge sections of Senate Bill 1183 (Pennsylvania’s new sex offender registration requirements) on multiple constitutional grounds.

Today marks the beginning of enforcement of a controversial new state law that purports to protect citizens from registered sex offenders. RSOL’s executive director Brenda Jones stated, “It is disappointing that Pennsylvania’s lawmakers chose to ignore the lessons learned when Ohio proceeded down this same disastrous path more than five years ago.” Ohio was the first state to be deemed AWA complaint, but the courts subsequently have found several aspects of Ohio’s new law unconstitutional. After expending millions of taxpayer dollars defending an unconstitutional law, Ohio was forced  to revert back to the old registration system for those sentenced prior to the new law’s enactment.

Jones stated that provisions of Pennsylvania’s new law “transform what is supposed to be a non-punitive, civil regulatory measure into a form of lifetime probationary supervision for most persons on the registry,” which RSOL believes to be blatantly unconstitutional. “And further,” she continues, “all individuals on Pennsylvania’s registry will see their registration periods dramatically increase, with the majority becoming life-timers. This,” she emphasized, “is a violation of the ex post facto clause.”

Jones stated that although the new law was touted by its supporters as necessary to bring Pennsylvania into compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA), “It does little if anything to improve public safety, and any marginal benefit achieved is at the expense of trampling over our most cherished constitutional protections.”

Jones concluded her remarks by saying, “It is most unfortunate that RSOL must undertake such a challenge, but make no mistake about it; we cannot and will not stand by while public policymakers shred the constitution and disregard their oaths of office.”


RSOL promotes the elimination of sexual abuse and the preservation of civil rights for all individuals through the use of effective legislation based on empirical research. We envision sexual offense laws based on equal justice and respect for the dignity of all people, protection from retroactively applied punishment, and the establishment of fact-based laws and policies which protect our communities.
 

-30-

Where are the Results? New Mexico Sentencing Commission Study Fails to Deliver

OPINION: Press Release

Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc., Calls N.M. Sentencing Commission Report a Sham

In September, 2012, after a six-year wait, the New Mexico Sentencing Commission published and distributed a study of sex offender recidivism in New Mexico. (1) At least, RSOL thinks that's what it is about.

“Where are the charts?” asks Lloyd Swartz, president of the N.M. affiliate of RSOL. “Where are the graphs? Where are the percentages? How is anyone supposed to understand what this is saying? Most of it has nothing to do with New Mexico.” Indeed, more than three pages of the four-page report do not. They instead provide information on various other studies around the country and even in Canada. Its only chart does NOT include New Mexico.

“I’ve never seen a recidivism report that didn’t use percentages,” comments Swartz. “You have to wade through all that stuff that has nothing to do with New Mexico, then wade through the paragraphs about the New Mexico study until you get to some numbers, and then you have to do the math to know what you have.”

Paralegal Larry Neely did the math. “Seven out of 126 from the prison cohort were returned to prison for a repeat sexual offense; that’s 5.5%. Of the 79 in the probation cohort, only one out of the 79 total had committed a new sexual offense. That is a fraction over 1%.” (1, pp. 2,3)

“This is outrageous,” Neely continues. “Our sex offender recidivism is low, very much in line with that found in other studies in other states. The Sentencing Commission obscures that fact by deliberately focusing on all these other studies, especially one widely-discredited study that shows higher recidivism for some populations but has nothing to do with our New Mexico study. The data from our study is being downplayed in the report and ignored in the media in favor of the higher numbers which don’t even apply. This is nothing more than political pandering.”

Dr. Jill Levenson, professor at Lynn University and author of many sexual offense related studies and publications, when asked to review the study, also expressed surprise that the newspaper articles dealing with the N.M. Commission’s report didn’t even cite the results of their N.M. recidivism study.

The NMSC, media, and at least one lawmaker have put nearly all their attention, says Swartz, on "one study done by a group from Canada (2) who specifically said that their results should not be used to formulate policy and which has been rejected as poorly controlled by the rest of the research community. (3) But that is what the media and politicians see when they look at the report.” (4)

“Even more egregious,” adds Neely, who has extensive knowledge of sentencing and supervision practices as they apply to sex offenders, “is the veiled suggestion in the Commission’s follow-up statement that some of the subjects from the study may have re-offended elsewhere, making the rate higher. (5) This is nonsense. Convicted sex offenders on parole or probation are virtually never given permission to leave the state. The Commission does not say that any of the study group is ‘missing.’ If one or two have been given permission to move elsewhere, the Commission would have had no difficulty at all tracking them. Everything in that report is designed as a scare tactic and as a springboard to a demand for additional restrictions on registrants and more stringent laws and monitoring.”

Brenda Jones, Executive Director of National RSOL, agrees there should be graphs and percentages, and she set about creating them (see original). “It took me about an hour,” she said. “It would seem like the NMSC could have taken an extra hour and produced something that has some meaning for the average citizen.” (6) ..Source.. by RSOL

-------------------------

(1) http://issuu.com/eadvocate/docs/nm_study_-_a_review_of_studies

(2) http://ccoso.org/Canadianstudy.pdf

(3) http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ccj/summary/v048/48.1hanson.html

(4) http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/study-reveals-when-rapists-reoffend

(5) http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/10/21/opinion/sentencing-panel-clarifies-story-on-its-report.html

...

Understanding OBAMACARE and SORNA: Undue influences?

6-29-2012 National:

OPINION: Undue Influences?

Are we again being bamboozled? I took it upon myself to actually try to read the U.S. Supreme court decision on Obamacare, maybe I shouldn't have done that, here is why.

I came across this portion by Justice Roberts:

For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.

That insight has led this Court to strike down federal legislation that commandeers a State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes. See, e.g., Printz, 521 U. S., at 933 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers); New York, supra, at 174–175 (invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations).

It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a “power akin to undue influence.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U. S. 548, 590 (1937). Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when “pressure turns into compulsion,” ibid., the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.

“[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” New York, 505 U. S., at 178. That is true whether Congress directly commands a State to regulate or indirectly coerces a State to adopt a federal regulatory system as its own.

Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system. “[W]here the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it maybe state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” Id., at 169.

Spending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds. In such a situation, state officials can fairly be held politically accountable for choosing to accept or refuse the federal offer.

But when the State has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its objectives without accountability, just as in New York and Printz. Indeed, this danger is heightened when Congress acts under the Spending Clause, because Congress can use that power to implement federal policy it could not impose directly under its enumerated powers.

SORNA 42 USC 16925:

SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.
(a) IN GENERAL.—For any fiscal year after the end of the period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement this title shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the jurisdiction under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).

This penalty is a FOREVER penalty. So the question: Is this a undue influence?

If so, would it invalidate SORNA?

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: Are the lawyers of the world watching???????????????

Reform Sex Offender Laws creates legal fund in response to murders of Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray in Washington State

OPINION: Press Release

Cambridge, MA -- Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL) Spurred on by the June 3 murders of two registered sex offenders, RSOL has created a legal fund dedicated to challenging the ever increasing restrictions imposed by legislatures throughout the United States. RSOL’s top priority will be attacking the expanding reach of sex offender registries because it is clear that these Internet websites have contributed to a steadily increasing number of murders of persons registered on that list.

RSOL’s Executive Director Brenda Jones pointed out that this is not the first incident where a person’s name being listed on Washington's sex offender registry has led to his murder. In 2005, two men on that registry were shot and killed in Bellingham by a vigilante who gained access to their home by posing as a law enforcement officer. Authorities investigating that shooting called it “one of the nation's most serious cases of vigilantism aimed at sex offenders.” (Seattle Times, August 30, 2005)

“Washington State expressed concern in 2005,” says Jones. “But what has the state done in the intervening years to prevent this from happening again? And what will they do now that two more registrants have been murdered at the hands of a vigilante using the sex offender registry as a tool?”

Clallam County prosecutor Deborah Kelly said in a recent court hearing that Patrick Drum, the self-proclaimed vigilante in the June 3 incident, had told investigators that he “planned to keep killing sex offenders until he was stopped.”

Gary Blanton's recent murder in Washington State left his young wife Leslie alone to raise their sons Gary, Jr. and Skylar, both under the age of three. The murder of Jerry Ray left his aging father alone with no assistance. News accounts have come in from as far as Maine showing that murders and other acts of vigilantism against registrants have occurred and are increasing. ***

“People on the registry are citizens, too,” Jones says. “The majority have completed serving their sentences. Their children, like Skylar and Gary Jr., are entitled to the same protection as any other citizen. They certainly do not deserve to have their parents marked as helpless targets for vigilantes.”

According to Jones, there is scant evidence that sex offender registries enhance public safety. “In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Public registration provides little more than a taxpayer-financed tool for vigilantes wishing to commit horrendous acts of vigilantism against registrants and places their innocent children in danger.”

RSOL believes that the full home address of registrants should be available only to law enforcement, not the general public. RSOL calls on Governor Gregoire to immediately issue an emergency order removing street addresses from the sex offender website. In addition, the Sex Offender Policy Board must commit itself to assuring the safety and well being not only of the men and women on its sex offender registry, but also the innocent family members of those registrants.

Reform Sex Offender Laws (www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org) is a national organization with affiliates in 39 states. RSOL advocates for the civil, constitutional, and human rights of roughly 750,000 registrants on the public sexual offender registry, not to mention millions of their family members-- including their children.

Any legal case RSOL undertakes must deal with registration itself and potentially impact a significant number of similarly situated persons. With its limited resources, RSOL cannot undertake any case where an individual simply wishes to challenge his/her conviction.

Contact: Brenda Jones, Executive Director
Reform Sex Offender Laws
Admin_Team@reformsexoffenderlaws.org
(443) 579-7765

NEWS RELEASE: Blanton and Ray Murders Emphasize need for Policy Change

OPINION: Press Release

Gary Blanton and Jerry Ray were ambushed and murdered on June 3 in Clallam County, Washington, by Patrick Drum. Having widowed Leslie Blanton and stolen a father from her two sons, the confessed killer said, "It had to be done," and that he had intended to kill even more persons he found on Washington's public sex offender registry.

"These two men were murdered in cold blood because they were required by law to mark themselves as targets for vigilantes," said Paul Shannon, Director of RSOL (Reform Sex Offender Laws). Vicki Henry, Director of W.A.R. (Women Against Registry) elaborated, "Drum's pathological hatred for 'registered sex offenders' has devastated the lives of Blanton's and Ray's families and friends and has sent chills of fear into the hearts of families and friends of another 750,000 registrants across this nation."

Most of the articles dealing with the story make it clear that such vigilante activity should not be tolerated by law-abiding citizens. "Anyone who is taking justice in to their own hands and attacking sex offenders in this community, we'll take care of them very, very strongly," said Clallan County Sheriff Bill Benedict to King5.com. Brian O'Neill, writing for the News Tribune's Blue Byline, "A cop's perspective of the news," (http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2012/06/04/1838/#storylink=cpy), zeroes in on the core problem: "Our justice system, for all its faults, is the product of our collective will, and it was created to repudiate [vigilantism]. Life is sacred and people deserve a chance to defend themselves from the presumptive judgment of one person."

Sadly, much of the reading public has no such scruples. Many comments to these blogs and articles hail Mr. Drum as a hero and deplore that he was arrested before he had completed or at least furthered his mission, as evidenced by these comments on various sites. A commenter on the Huffington Post wrote,“ I for one am 100% for the registry and they should probably include bounties on it too… I really don't [sic] care where patrick [sic] found the names. im [sic] just glad he found them.” “I say let him go and give him a medal,” wrote a visitor to King5.com. And from The Daily News came, “The president should grant him amnesty. He obviously has unfinished work to do.”

Blanton and Ray and far too many others are victimized daily by the malingering stigma of sex-crimes from which they long ago repented and have completed their punishments. Blanton's offense of third degree rape occurred over a decade ago when he himself was a juvenile; he leaves behind a family. Ray, convicted of rape of a child in 2003, lived with his father.

RSOL, SOSEN (Sex Offender Solutions and Education Network), and W.A.R. work daily to educate public officials and the general public about scientifically grounded practices which have been proven to make communities safer. "Sexual violation of a child is a serious crime that is usually carried out by relatives or others close to the child. But most people on the registry have never actually harmed a child,” said Shannon. “We need to support policies and laws that are effective and based on solid research. Public sex offender registries are neither. It is long past time to terminate policies based on ignorance and hatred which stigmatize, ostracize, and terrorize those labeled "sex offenders” and their families long after they have completed their sentences.”

Lynn Gilmore, SOSEN CEO, who uses a pseudonym for advocacy work in order to safeguard family privacy due to the potential for bigotry, bullying, and stigma associated with the issue, added, "Since 2003, there has been a notable increase in the number of murders of registrants. It is hard to deny that the creation of a public registry has led to unintended consequences: vigilante threats and actions, verbal assaults, vandalism, violence, and murders of registrants and, in some cases, their innocent family members. At SOSEN we feel that the only place for a registry of this nature is in the hands of law enforcement, not the public."

"When people are on the registry, it puts them in danger of having targets drawn on their foreheads as well as on the foreheads of family members and others who live at the same address. In doing this, the public registry is facilitating criminal acts. Clearly, the public registry must be seriously reconsidered,” concludes Shannon.

For more information contact the following:
R. William van der Wall, RSOL Correspondence Committee, 919.780.4510, salemredux@gmail.com or visit reformsexoffenderlaws.org
Vicki Henry, Women Against Registry Director, 636.208.5949, vicki.henry@womenagainstregistry.com or visit womenagainstregistry.com
Lynn Gilmore, SOSEN CEO, 800.773.4319, lynn.gilmore13@yahoo.com or visit sosen.org

-30-

NEWS RELEASE dated 06.11.2012 distributed copyright-free by Vicki Henry of Women Against Registry 636.208.5949 as a public service. Questions about content or distribution may be emailed to one of the above or to vicki.henry@womenagainstregistry.com