Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Low Recidivism Rate Claims for Child Molesters Identified, Questioned and Debunked


We get a lot of comments on this blog, most of them great. However, I have long ago stopped being amazed by some of the statements certain people leave here. Especially when they are saying particularly awful things that are not at all true, and then repeat them every chance they get. It is as if they believe that repetition improves veracity, and even their most egregious lies somehow become less untrue if they are repeated often.

You should probably also consider why there are people in this community willing to defend such abhorrent behaviors as child molesting, and are happy to spend their time inventing completely untrue nonsense to defend those who have committed this crime. Yes, they are out there. And some of them are hardly shy about it.

Probably one of the ugliest of these canards goes something along the lines of this following unholy whopper, which was deposited here on the blog once again yesterday. With follow ups from others.

"Most people who have long ago committed a sex offense (and have not repeated since) will likely not repeat; this is a statistic empirically proven, but ignored somehow ignored by our police, judges, politicians, and the media. Awknowledging this fact does not help their excessive salaries and pensions or need for emotionally-charged publicity. We have seen the effect harsh penalties have had on our nephew who made a mistake when he was 23 years old. He is a good person who deserves to move on long after he paid his sentence, as he is now 28 years old."

I am not sure where this individual got his "statistic empirically proven" because he didn't say. But the gist of the claim seems to be that sex offenders, and in particular child molesters, once punished, are unlikely to ever again repeat that crime. Therefore they should be happily welcomed back into the community where their atrocious acts were committed and allowed the same freedoms as everyone else.

So is any of that true? Apparently not. In the hopes of clearing some of this egregious nonsense up, I thought I'd post here today a few passages from a study called, "Recidivism of Adult Sexual Offenders." It comes to us from the U.S. Department of Justice, and can be accessed in its entirety by clicking here.


As you can see, the recidivism rates of child molesters are hardly low. And those recidivism rates do not improve with the passage of time. Despite what the author of the blog comment I cited here today claims. 

Which leads to another important point that needs to be shared.


I hope that clears things up a little.

Another article you might want to check out

It is called "Stalking the Bogeyman" and comes to us from the publication Westword. It is a pretty powerful account, and you can read it by clicking here.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

45 comments:

  1. Let's stir up some more hatred,for some selfish egotistical yellow journalism you should be in Cleveland Crawford

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Child Molester Rights crowd is up and ready for action.

      Delete
    2. 7:53, it's just the truth.
      If you take some deep breaths and calm down, you might be able to adjust to the facts.

      Delete
    3. I think 7:53's unicorn has a hurt wing and he won't be able to get to Sparkle Mart this morning.

      Delete
    4. Lock your doors they are coming for your crèche!!

      Delete
    5. I think you're probably right.

      Delete
  2. 7:53 needs to read Stalking the Boogeyman. With an open mind, and heart.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're spot on about recidivism rates among child molesters, but what evidence is there that Jessica's Law-style residency restrictions do anything to protect children? At least 90% of all molestation is done someone known to the child. Many of the rest are people groomed over the internet. And making someone live far from any school or park does nothing to stop them from getting in their car and driving. There are very few scenarios where these restrictions will do any good. If the commenter's nephew is who I suspect he is (and I know of one SM resident who is about the right age and used to live near me), I have little sympathy for him. The one I'm thinking of tried to pick up a 13-year-old on the internet, and 5 years doesn't seem like nearly enough time to trust him again. He damn well should bear the stigma. But banning people like him from living near any school or park would be pointless. I'd rather have them somewhere they can be easily monitored rather than living in some out of the way place where we lose track of them. That just makes them even more likely to re-offend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But banning people like him from living near any school or park would be pointless. I'd rather have them somewhere they can be easily monitored rather than living in some out of the way place where we lose track of them. That just makes them even more likely to re-offend."

      How so?

      Delete
    2. Jessica's Law, which was approved by California voters, never got the chance to show what it could do. Instead it was shot down by an activist California Supreme Court. Yet another instance where government believes it knows better than the people.
      http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-jessica-law-20150327-story.html

      Delete
    3. Jessica's law was well intended but clearly unconstitutional.

      Delete
    4. Jessica's Law was voted into existence by the people of California. It was stolen by a useless CA Supreme Court bent on preserving the so-called rights of the scum of the earth.

      Delete
    5. Sorry even though it's a gnarly crime. Criminals even though they have victimized others, still have rights. If we deny their rights unconstitutionally then we are victimizing the victimizers. Hammurabi was not a founding father. Just find a legal way do address your fear

      Delete
    6. Sure 1:35 - there's no real problem, just people's fear.
      It's Hammurabi or nothing?

      Delete
    7. Gnarly?
      Dude.

      Delete
    8. 8:38,

      Do you have any idea how common schools and parks are? How spread out they are through all our communities. It's often virtually impossible for paroled offenders to find housing that fulfills the distance requirements. That often leads to them being homeless or simply going off the grid and failing to report. If they can find housing, they'll tend to be clustered with other sex offenders in a place where they have no family or community connections. That's a scenario that makes it much _more_ likely they will re-offend. Requiring sex offenders to live a set distance from schools, etc. is like security theater at airports: a showy action that accomplishes exactly nothing. It might make people feel virtuous, but even in the best case it's unlikely to help at all, and there's good reason to think it will lead to increased problems.

      Delete
    9. Why is allowing child molesters to live near schools important to you?

      Delete
    10. I think we know.

      Delete
  4. When reading the first post defending "bad decisions" re: child molestion and youth served his time. I wanted to read between the lines and assume the "crime" was between a sixteen or seventeen year old and an eighteen year old. That would fall back on absent parenting and out dated graying of laws. Anything beyond this senerio would be A SEX CRIME.
    If i also understad some of the assorted brain injuries/disorders; the most difficult and "incurable" is that of pyromania .
    Both if these types of individuals must always be kept in check; regardless if they have served time. These are deep and very difficult disorders that control an individuals life, and marking time in life without intense and a life time of therapy will only end poorly for all those involved.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Surely one of the worst problems we as a species face - people do horrible things and then make excuses for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case the victimizers are claiming victimhood.

      Delete
    2. Without the clear admission of guilt, no progress of any kind can be made.
      And the complete manipulation of those around the criminal continues.

      Delete
    3. Yep. Sounds like the working definition of a narcissist.

      Delete
  6. I wonder what Martin Luther King would make of a civil rights movement based on the lifestyle requirements of people who rape children.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only perfect being in this world was Christ; and he was nailed to a cross.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you believe that story

      Delete
    2. I don't think there is much of an alternative. One look at at the average atheist would make anyone realize how desperately we need a merciful God.

      Delete
    3. How many atheists do you actually know, 1:45? In real life, I mean.

      Delete
    4. The atheists I know tend to talk about themselves a lot. Very boring people.

      Delete
    5. Spoken like a true christian

      Delete
    6. Ah shaddup.

      Delete
  8. "Another important finding was that the rate of reoffending decreased the longer offenders had been offense-free." This is found on page 2 of the Department of Justice paper cited above by The Tattler.

    I think it's important to realize that not all sex offenders are child molesters. My nephew, for example, was convicted of exhibitionism. Never in trouble before that. He is doing well now, a recent graduate from a CSU. But he is hindered by the label given by our politicians and the judge. He is labeled a sex offender for life.

    Our Consitution is derived to protect against "cruel and unusual" punishment. Lifetime registration schemes that treat all sex offenders equally may violate what our Founding Fathers intended. Remember: each one of the Bill of Rights was intended to protect the INDIVIDUAL from our government. After seeing how the police and prosecutors treated my nephew so badly (even after he cooperated fully and immediately accepted responsibility) I look to the Constitution as what our government must abide to. Right now, all I see are double-standards and corruption by our government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are dishonest and your story is obviously made up BS.

      Delete
    2. Chile Molesters lives matter!

      Delete
    3. All South American lives matter!

      Delete
    4. 1:21 needs mentoring.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous lives matter!

      Delete
  9. It's hard to see how much destruction people cause in this world, but there is hope. On a very large scale, the world has become less and less violent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry to be a debbie downer. Over one hundred million souls have left this earth; just in this century. Genocide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Mankind is really something special to believe in.

      Delete
    2. The Better Angles of our Nature, by Stephen Pinker.
      1:46, do you mean last century?

      Delete
    3. I think you meant angels. Unless you are working some angles.

      Delete
    4. A little geometric slip. Thanks, 2:55.

      Delete
  11. Sociopathy + perversion. They never change. Segregation from society and severe restrictions are necessary to protect society.

    Some libertarians may knee-jerk claim that government/society should not restrict an individual after he has "paid his debt," but (1) when is such a "debt" truly paid and (2) isn't society composed of individuals who have the right to be protected from miscreants?

    ReplyDelete