Last week’s decision
Comments
“This federal study, for example, shows that although more than 50% of individuals convicted of a sex crime against children had a prior conviction, only 7.3% had a prior conviction for a sex offense against a child.”
I’m not sure how the “only” qualifier there makes sense. Individuals convicted of sex crimes against children make up a fraction of a percent of the total population, but are responsible for 7.3% of sex crimes against children? Why doesn’t that indicate that they pose a much greater danger?
Posted by: zap rowsdower | Jun 26, 2017 8:29:34 PM
I agree with Carissa’s analysis. I would add that you don’t have to go to a journalist for the statistic that 95% of sex crimes are committed by first offenders who obviously are not on the registry. There’s a study of sex crimes using administrative data in New York that finds that 95 % of sex offense arrestees between 1986 and 2006 were first-time sex offenders. Sandler, J.C,., Freeman N.J., and Socia K.M., Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. 14 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 284 (2008).
Posted by: Ira Ellman | Jun 26, 2017 2:40:38 PM
Hmm . . . I think I’ve fixed the Vaughn link (it should go to a Twitter thread). But it appears to have bumped this post back up to the top of the blog. I’m sure I’ll get the hang of this eventually . . .
Posted by: CBHessick | Jun 26, 2017 10:11:41 AM
I read the articles and did not find the 60% stat. Is it 60% of total law enforcement? Of police budget? Of sexual crimes division of police? One could argue that the registry is pointless, cruel, and unfair without throwing out, at best, meaningless stats.
Posted by: biff | Jun 26, 2017 9:42:00 AM
Mr. Vaughn’s article was one of a three-part series. All three are available here: http://ccresourcecenter.org/2016/04/25/a-wide-ranging-look-at-sex-offender-registration-in-pa-and-beyond/
If the public knew the actual cost in resources to support the sex offender registry and all of its appendages, they would be indignant that something that does not even begin to address the realities of child sexual offending consumes taxpayer dollars and other resources to the extent that it does.
This piece on the extent of what the author calls the sex offender industry sheds light on the vast amount of money associated with the registry and those who benefit. http://with-justiceforall.blogspot.com/search?q=sex+offender+industry
What it is about this subject that generates and will continue to generate so much interest and data is that the effectiveness of the sex offender registry system as an aid to public safety is a hoax.
Posted by: Sandy Rozek | Jun 26, 2017 7:42:32 AM
The article from the Carlisle Sentinel doesn’t come up when clicked up. However, I find the idea that “police devote as much as 60% of their resources to enforcing registry laws” unbelievable. What is it about this subject that generates so much useless data that judges and law school professors then confidently sling around to back up their existing prejudices?
Posted by: PaulB | Jun 25, 2017 5:24:00 PM