Whoops - I meant http://nationalrsol.org/

Someone once said that if you tell a big lie and you keep repeating it, people are bound to believe it, especially if you throw in a little bit of truth to confuse the issue.

They should really chat with the people that deal with SOs everyday...the POs and therapists, and state troopers because the ones I've spoken to think it's to lump them all together. And I can tell you, the troopers where my hubby registers pretty much loathe the AWA. They've made mention as to how much extra work it is for them and they can't figure out how a previously low risk offender is now "high" risk due to a change in the law. One of my ex-coworker's husband is a state trooper and he said they just shake their heads at what comes out of Harrisburg sometimes.

*silly* to lump them all together

Much of the statistical information that has been used to pass many of these law came out of studies done in the 70s in the gay men community. Considering the sample population, sample size and what is being derived from the information it skews the results to make it appear that 'all' men are pedophiles.

It has not been until the last 7 or so years that what I consider 'good' data has been gathered about the real statistics on recidivism and the nature of sexual assault, the victims and the offenders. There is a cycle that has been ignored widely until recently.

Couple that with the cold hard truth from the law enforcement officers that have to implement and enforce the laws. Because they see first hand someone that they never knew about talked to now considered high risk now for what? Because of a statute that literally changing someone's sentence after the fact.

But then you'll have those on the other side of the fence that believe what the computer tells them regardless if they know it is blatantly wrong. So assume that because their legislature told them that the person was high risk that they just believe it blindly.

I noticed a similar statement when looking at Kansas or Colorado's (can't remember which) rules/restrictions for RSO's. :/

yes FL quotes that crap too - they get away with it because no one sticks up for the truth (well not no one but not enough people) Where is the 66% rate in GA from? That is very high and goes against all the studies and statistics.

oh and realize those statements are not based on facts at all - they are based on constant lies that have been told since at least the 60s - and people believe them - they are not quoting facts - just plain outright
crap LOL

Well, I don't know where the numbers came from. But let me share it with you like this. I was an aide in the 'career center' and we pushed that number out to the guys coming through the class. I forget if it was 3-5 years, but we would tell them it's a 66% recidivism rate within 3 or 5 years.

And just a few weeks ago, the governor Nathan Deal spoke at a church I was attending and he spat off a similar number. He was at least speaking of instituting programs to help the vast majority of people getting out. It's silly to imagine that the overwhelming mass majority of people will get out of prison. And if you don't provide them with some form of resources while they're in, that they have few options when they get out. I can't speak specifically he is just blowing smoke, or does he genuinely have an agenda to make it better.

The policies in GA focus mainly on non-violent crimes. So nearly all of the sex crimes are classified as violent. Many of the prisons in GA have been escalated up to 'close' security with 23 hour a day lock down, etc. it's not cool I promise.

Most politicians do not have a clue as to the inner workings of the departments that are in their governments. So an entity such as the DOC in a state is far too big for them to know the inner workings and what actually goes on, not just the shiny reports that are prepared especially for them.

Here's the deal. The SCOTUS has held that even though there is not a right to privacy found in the constitution that all US citizens enjoy the right to privacy. In order for the government to abridge that right the courts have ruled the government needs a compelling state interest. The lie that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate is kept in place because they don't want to go through the public fiasco of ending the registry. Better to keep people scared. The registry is a wink wink agreement between the state and the courts. Anyone who has done academic research on toptix knows that the recidivism rate of sex offenders is low. It's embarassing how little scholarly support there is for the sentence that takes away sex offender's constitutional rights. It's better to be safe than sorry, if it only saves one kid, the constitution be damned.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

You ask a great question droid, where do their facts come from. The answer is simple, poor research methodology, and extrapolating those poorly researched stats from years ago to a class of people that are being redefined everyday.

You may hear the claim that sex offenders all have over 200 victims, if they don't they are lying. So why was it a poor research methodology that held this belief? First think back 30 years ago to the people who were in prison for sex crimes. This was back before the laws named after missing children, before stranger danger turned the system upside down. What would you have to do to be arrested, tried and convicted for a sex crime? The answer is a lot, the people in prison were the worst of the worst, true tier 3 offenders. So you are doing a supposedly random sample with in a poisoned pool of candidates.

Secondly, they are trying to extrapolate that data to all sex offenders now. The definition of sex offender changes at the whim of congress, more and more crimes get added to that definition. Things that land you on the registry now may have been criminal back 30 years ago but you were more than likely not going to be arrested for it.

So a bad sample for the study, a non-random sample, and then trying to extrapolate that poor research design to different types of offenses in a different time.

Our opponents have to believe that all academia is just one big bleeding liberal heart for them to have the stance they do. Because there is no academic research that backs up the claim that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. Unless you are Bill Clinton and want to discuss the definition of the word high!

It is literally embarrassing how little research there is to support their points.