Families Affirming Community Safety (FACTS)

December 15, 2009

Recidivism down to 3.2%?

Filed under: Research — billorights @ 9:21 am
Tags: , , , , ,

Report from 2008 shows that in California, the re-offense rate was only 3.2%.  That is showing that therapy is 97% successful.  So you have to ask yourself, why as a society, do we make life so difficult for the 97% that will succeed?  Isn’t that counterproductive?  Why not focus on therapy, and stiffen penalties for those that do re-0ffend?  Public witch hunt does nothing for public safety.

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-scientist-reports-low-sex-offender.html

Advertisements

December 10, 2009

Fallacy of Recidivism and Low Risk Registrants

Recidivism – Risk of Repeat Offense.  Supporters of public registry say that even the lowest risk people MUST be on the registry for ‘public safety’.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, only 5% of ‘sex offenders’ repeat their crimes (see link on right).

Most studies, including U.S. Department of Justice, and Justice and Policy Center site that 90%+ of ALL sex offenses are committed by first time offenders.
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-11_RPT_WalshActRegisteringHarm_JJ-PS.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003847/posts

Reason would demand, that if 90% of all sex offenses are done by a non registered person, then an unregistered person is more likely to be ‘at risk’ to the public then a registrant (since DOJ states only 5% will reoffend).

If the public demands that even low risk people should be on the internet, then why not register everyone ‘to be safe’.

My point is to show the diminishing returns of the registry.  At some point, registrants need to be allowed to move on, especially if studies show that therapy is over 95% effective.

To put these people on the registry for life is truly barbaric, no better than the way witches were treated in medieval times.

The public registry halts rehabilitation, and makes re-integration into society absolutely impossible.  Leaving most registrants jobless, homeless, and completely desperate.  The public registry is truly a self fulfilling prophecy.  The public registry does more to make a registrant dangerous, then it ever will to make even a single child safer.  The registry does not stop registrants from doing anything.  It simply makes their life more difficult, and gives public a false sense of security.

Mandatory therapy is truly the only answer towards making the public safer.  Public degradation does nothing to promote safety.

Patty Wetterling says it’s gone too far!

Patty Wetterling was the driving force behind the creation of the ‘sex offender’ registry.  Now with Adam Walsh Act, she is actively petitioning to stop registries, because they have gone too far.  She is now focusing her efforts to stop the tide, because it’s doing more harm than good.

To take a person who has dedicated her life to stopping child exploitation, and turn her into campaigning AGAINST Adam Walsh Act should be a major red flag to all politicians.  She hired an attorney to fight Adam Walsh Act in Ohio, and in Omaha we have been in contact with her attorney to fight in Nebraska as well.

“Everybody wants to out-tough the next legislator. ‘I’m tough on crime,’ ‘No, I’m even more tough.’ It’s all about ego and boastfulness,” says Wetterling.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/06/11/sexoffender1/

Sex Offender Insanity

A series of stories showing the dark side of the ‘sex offender’ craze.  These people are often considered simply ‘collateral damage’ by supporters of Adam Walsh.  Most supporters say it is no big deal to destroy a few children in an effort to brand the ‘monsters’.

Really?   I find that incredibly sad, to be willing to sacrifice a few children.

What if it were your children getting destroyed?  One can’t help but think that supporters of this law have less humanity than many of the registrants.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/12/01/sex-offender-insanity-2/

Society feels safer by making ‘sex offenders’ more desperate?

This story is from Texas, but illustrates the complete lack of sense that these laws make.

“If there is someone who is a registered sex offender living down the street from you, would you rather (have) them home alone, unemployed, desperate and homeless, or have a job, afford probation, treatments fees and counseling?” Molnar asked. “People can’t be productive members of society without a job. This won’t allow them to work.”

http://www.kdhnews.com/news/story.aspx?s=33954

LB-285 Sacrificing constitution for money?

Filed under: Legal,Research — billorights @ 5:10 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

LB-285 violates 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 10th, and 14th Amendment of the registrant, as well as 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Amendment of spouse and children.  So what is the price that our Senate puts on striping the constitution?  You might be surprised.

LB-285 was implemented in response to the Federal government’s Adam Walsh Act.  The Federal government mandated that states implement the Adam Walsh Act or lose 10% of their Jag Byrnes funding.  So Senators say ‘their hands were tied’, and they ‘were forced to do this’.  Because ‘in this economy, they can’t lose 10% of their funding’.

Ok.  So how much do they lose if they don’t violate the constitution?

According to the Department of Justice, Nebraska’s Jag Byrnes Funding was $1,288,957.  If they do not implement Adam Walsh Act, they stand to lose 10%, or $128,895.

So what is LB-285 going to cost?  According to the same Department of Justice figures, $2,878,281.    But other estimates put the number closer to $6,000,000 of tangible costs, not counting all of the intangible costs.  Such as registrants who are no longer employable and live on welfare.  Bankruptcies when registrants can no longer work.  Court costs as the state has to defend LB-285.   And if Ohio is any indication, you can expect 911 and law enforcment to get taxed to breaking points as the public panics over the number of registrants that will go public.

Even taking the low numbers.  Our Senate signed a bill into law to save $128,000 knowing it would cost nearly $3,000,000 to save that $128,000?  And if they bothered to check ANY of the studies on the law, every study shows that the law doesn’t work, and makes the public more at risk?  Or is it possible they signed a bill not even knowing it would cost 20 to 40 times what it would save?

If your Senator tells you they did this for the money, then you need to ask them if they checked ANY of the facts behind this before signing this.  It’s no wonder our state is in financial turmoil if we make it a habit to spend $3,000,000 to save $128,000 on a law that every subject matter expert says is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Click here to read the report

https://constitutionaldefense.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/jag-byrnes-funding.pdf

So what price does Nebraska Senate put on shredding the constitution?  They are throwing money away just to be able to take away rights of individuals with no victims.

Blog at WordPress.com.