I'd have a few:

1. If that is true, then we have to assume that the vast majority of sex offenders are NEVER caught. Which means that the registry is entirely ineffective, because, even if we assume that everybody on it is likely to reoffend, because sexual offenses are so often unreported, for every person on it who is likely to commit a sex offense, there are like 50 more people in the general public likely to commit a sex offense.

2. This reasoning can't be applied only to sex crimes. Certainly most drunk drivers, drug users, petty thieves, and many other criminals also aren't caught most of the time. We would have to stop using data on recidivism for any crime if we want to throw it out in the case of sex offenses.

3. The numbers make no sense. Assuming that sex offenders have 100+ victims on average is insane. It defies logic. Michigan currently has 40,000 registered sex offenders. If each one had 175 victims, as this piece would imply, then they have 7 million victims between them. Michigan has less than 2.5 million children total living in it. Even if each sex offender had one-tenth of the victims this piece is claiming--just 17.5 victims--that would mean that a third of Michigan children had been molested by a registered sex offender. That is clearly not the case.

And, that's *just* registered sex offenders. When you take all that data together--that only a small percentage of sex offenders are ever convicted AND that most sex offenders have many victims--you end up with a situation where more than 100% of children would have to be sexually abused and you STILL wouldn't have enough abused children to have the numbers line up.

I guess it depends if you are going to use the same labels... It would appear that this article is referring to child molesters more than the whole group of those that are classified as sex offenders.

What was the compelling argument that you found?

I also noticed that they used extremely old information as their citings, from 2003 and 1990? I know that the information isn't all that accurate at all. Also the recidivism rates that they show are extremely skewed and look as though they are including any crime not just another sex crime, which isn't the impression the article is giving either.

So what was so compelling about this again?

here is another way to look at the 100+ stat that people like to throw around...

There are 750,000 registrants on the registry now... that is 75 million people that have been victimized.

There is 311,591,917 people in the United States.... 24% of the population has been sexually assaulted by someone in their life.

Now let us not forget that many of those that become sex offenders are sexually assaulted themselves. So lets say 25% of the 100 victims per offender goes on to commit offenses themselves. that would be 18,750,000 people that are committing sex crimes. Do any of you see where I am going with this? What it means is that ALL of us are either sex offenders or we are victims because with the way the numbers play out we are all one or the other. That is if we believe the statistic that ever offender offends against 100+ victims in their lifetime.

Just to add, because bad science drives me INSANE, the 175 number is sheer garbage. These men were lying, either because admitting to many offenses gained them privileges/status with the therapist, or just because they were mentally disturbed. But there is no way that all of them had that many victims, unless every single one of those 23 men was in a position with easy access to MANY children.

I am a friendly, normal mom with three very friendly kids. I live in a neighborhood with lots of children, and my friends have, on average, about 3-4 kids each. I was the lead teacher at a Sunday school for a while, and have worked at a day care. And I *still* don't think I've had close contact with 175 children in my adult life, and certainly haven't been in contact with so many children that I could have abused 175 of them without getting reported.

And, again, I am a friendly, normal woman with kids. If I were a man, I'd have even fewer opportunities, and if I had some of the problems that a good number of child molesters have--social isolation, addiction problems, mental illness, etc.--I'd have even fewer than that.

There is simply no way those numbers are valid. There's reasons why the study was unpublished.

twoforjoy-Good oints!

I found the talk about ig 100% reoffended then recidivism could come out as 6%. Still even with labels I know in AZ that child molesters actually have lower recidivism even among other SOs.

The 175 is bogus. Using averages here is not showing truth. Say if you took 10 people and asked them how many oreos they eat in one sitting. 2 say 1 oreo. 3 say they eat 2. 2 say 3. and 2 say 4. The last one says they eat an entire box which is about 45. That would mean that the average ate 6.7 oreos when really 9 out of the 10 ate 4 or less. So it's just not a good representation.

The problem with that article is that it assumes all people convicted of a sex offense is a serial child molester.

That is just not true. I will agree that some child molesters have multiple victims. But most of the guys I knew in prison were not in there for molesting children; the victims were usually 13 years of age or older.
Now I realize 13 years old is not very old, but a 13 year old is not a child.

The guys I knew that were serial child molesters had many victims (by the way, a child molester, even a serial child molester is most likely not a pedophile.) True pedophiles genuinely love children in much the same manner in which a man would love a woman or a woman would love a man. A true pedophile does not rape children.

Also a little known fact about pedophiles that I observed is that they are child-like in their actions. For instance, in prison they would enjoy cartoons and games that children play.

Most of the guys I knew were in prison for consensual sex with an underage teen---usually ONE AND ONLY ONE teen. They had an underage girlfriend and then things went wrong when mom or dad found out and they were reported.

I would estimate less than 25% of the sex offender population in prison were men who just molested children. And many of them only molested one particular child.

Articles such as this imply that child molesters have many many victims over a long period of time. That is just not the experience I saw with these guys.

rewdiazepam

Wisconsinrsol, I think it's actually worse than that. Let's just use their numbers at face value, and ignore that many RSOs are on for victimless crimes. 750,000 registrants, 175 victims each on average. That is 130 million victims. There are currently about 75 million people 0-17 in the United States. Even if we assume that half of the victims of the RSOs are now over 18, that would mean that, even if there was no sexual abuse that happened that went unreported, EVERY SINGLE CHILD in the U.S. has been abused by a registered sex offender.

FWIW, the organization that runs the website hates Elizabeth Loftus and claims that recovered memory is a real thing. That has been thoroughly scientifically debunked. It's a junk science group.

"The 175 is bogus. Using averages here is not showing truth."

That's true, but it's not even not true because averages are misleading. An average of 175 victims would still mean that, between them, the 23 sex offenders had over 4,000 victims. There is simply no way, statistically, that that could be true. If it were, even if the only people abusing children were convicted sex offenders, we'd still have more people being abused than there are children in this country.

what about those who is in treatment counceling every week. i think if there was help long time ago for people . which they didnt feel would land them in jail . many people would of gotten the help , and wouldnt gotten like this thru the years . people need a second chance in life . to be restored . not taken their freedom away completely rest their lives . i think many people whom are depressed and feeling like what the sence of living . will end up getting in some kind of trouble later in life.. because they feel society doesnt care any about them . and could care less i f t hey received help . the government , psychologist now a days are all about money too .. no help,just pay every week . how this going to help,people???. when you get people in govt and councelors who care about restoration . and not all about the money then you will see big changes in people lives. because they wont be about imprisoning people .locking people up. and if people are doing good and staying out of trouble ,they should have a sec chance l.but they will give our loved ones a sec chance . restoration programs will be in place and families will be free to live again .

they need to show the rates of recidivism for those who a re in some kind of treatment ..

The point is that an article like that shouldn't even get the face time it is getting on a forum like this...

Unfortunately, though, it sounds like lawmakers are listening to these people.

I think it is good to see what we are up against. I wanted some good rebuttal should I come across this in person and since I didn't have one I knew you guys would. Thank you!

Personally, I file this article under "imflammatory, false, and dramatic."