But if all the states had to be the same you could be sure they'll go with the max. My son has 15 years and then he's off the registry. We ran away from Floriduh because of that. I would be afraid they'd change the laws here to match FL.

How do you get from point A to point B Derek? That is what I am suggesting with a tier down system.

How did gay marriage become law in many states and will be law in every state in less than 10 years. They pushed for one thing at a time. I'm not saying that both issues are identical, but I think any activist movement can definitely learn a lot from the gay rights play book.

The tier system as per the AWA just made it worse. My hubby was 10 years based on risk, but AWA based it accuser's age so now he's on for life

The tier system I am proposing is based on risk. That is what actuarial tests like the static 99 and tests for dynamic risk factors are meant to uncover. What we have now is not what I would propose faereydark.

The Tier system is hardly less subject to abuse than the AWA. Ohio's pre-AWA system was risk assessment. Yet, judges were free to dismiss the tests if they don't give the desired results, and can choose to use hearsay evidence as "proof" of risk.

The Static-99r's recidivism estimate chart shows that even those the test determines "high" are relatively low rates:

http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/detailed_recid_tables_static99r_2009-11-15.pdf

Someone who scores a 6 is a "high" risk, yet recidivism rates over 10 years was still about 25%. It is at best a marginal predictor of risk. You'd be better off flipping a coin.

The Static-99r, and tests like it, only look at static (unchanging) factors, like age of victim, age offense occurred, marital status at time of offense, a history of drug/ alcohol use, prior arrests, and so on.

Much more than mere tests would be needed. You can't judge a person based on a 12 point checklist.

By the way, does anyone know how to go back and edit a post here? I meant to type 17, not 7 in my earlier post, I missed a keystroke and it can be subject to wrong interpretations by certain reptiles.

Even the best of us can make a small typo, even me. There I fixed it.

Valerie Drunkhurst is never right on any level.

No activist I have seen has ever claimed "most" registrants are public pissers or teen sexters. However, we state you can indeed land on the list for those acts. Semantics makes a big difference. There's a difference between saying something is a possibility In making the latter statement we open up the discussion to a truism that not every person on the list is a chili-mo or rape-o.

The other error some people make is forgetting the fact that the legal definitions don't accurately portray the details of the case. If a 19 year old bangs a 17 year old in a state where the AoC is 18, then that person committed "rape," no matter what actually happened. Because the "victim" is a minor, the act is considered "violent." So even if the 19 year old's "victim" is a willing participant, even if she actively or aggressively pursued the act, the 19 year old is a "violent rapist." We can't look on the list and differentiate between him and a 19 year old who actually forcefully raped someone.

Any alleged issues of "credibility" stem from two main issues. One is the fact most of you don't take the fight to those who propagate this garbage. The second coming from the fact that we are in the minority group, and the mass media does not cater to us. When it comes to marketing, VISIBILITY EQUALS CREDIBILITY. We aren't seen as credible because most of you are content with laying low, or "hiding in the shadows," and according to the Valigaturds of the world, hiding is what "pedos" do because you're really all out trolling for kids in your rusty vans. Invisible people are easier to dehumanize and discriminate against. It is amazing how people change attitudes quickly when confronted by someone they

In order to win the war of words, you have to understand how to fight back.

The static. 99 would be no more effective to flip a coin? The predictor is within a couple percent almost all the time, even predicting lower rates sometimes when there are higher rates. If I was on my desktop I'd run the numbers through excel. But just looking at it there is no way that the predicted rate if recidivism is only 50% as accurate as the observed recidivism. My guess by just looking at the numbers, 85-90% accurate , but I'll run the numbers tonight and let you know.

People with a 6 score on it had a 25% recidivism rate, which is 5 times greater than the average of all sex offenders (5%). Certainly not "high risk" but 5 times greater than the average sex offender is definitely significant. To call it anything else is ridiculous.

Besides using only the static-99 you would need to include dynamic risk factors as well. Social ties to the community, stable employment, stable housing etc.

Not going to lie, I personally like the static-99 because I score a 0 on it. I would suspect people that score higher are not as pleased with it.

When your argument is that some people can get on the list for crime A, but less that 5% of the list is made up of crime A, it is a red herring. If I was debating you, I would say fine let's taken them off the list. What do you say after that? You are trying to argue we need to remove the entire registry, pointing out it's flawed for 5% isn't a good argument.

In the war of words you need to be credible to be taken seriously. I'm on your side, I want the registry taken down, but I don't always find what you say credible to our critics.

I guess I should ignore the researchers, media outlets, and fellow activists because YOU don't like how I approach the issue. Your opinion does NOT invalidate the fact I am one of the most reputable and CREDIBLE resources anywhere on the internet.

You like the Static-99 because you scored a zero? Well whoop-de-do. Be thankful the judge didn't toss it out simply because he thinks all RSOs are child rape-murderers in training. The judge could have looked at the fact that someone with a 0 rank still has a measurable risk and thus you are still a threat to society. You are leaving out the judicial discretionary factor. And the risk assessments aren't perfect. So a top tier registrant still has a 75% probability he WON'T reoffend? That's pretty significant.

If the Static99 was really that effective, then the prediction rates would be higher, simple as that. The researchers know it is limited.

Your claim we are not credible because some of us use the minor offenses as a talking point for starting a greater dialogue on the registry in general is simply a matter of your opinion. Using talking points are not the same as red herrings because they aren't the end all to the argument. It is a decent counter to the myth that "all registered citizens are rapists/pedos."

It seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees.

So is it safe to guess that you are not a zero on the static 99, and that hasn't caused any of your bias against it?

It is not a perfect predictor, I'm not claiming it is. I'm claiming it should be one factor used in determine what tier to place offenders on. And again I'll do the math tonight, but it looks just at first glance to be 85-90% accurate. Yes ultimately my goal is to see the registry abolished or at the very least LE eyes only.

And 25% recidivism is a good number compared to most other crimes. But it is not 5% that we all proclaim is the actual recidivism number for sex offenders.

I am not against what you stand for, I'm just saying how it comes across to people outside the movement. Again your argument falls on deaf ears when you say R&Js are on the registry, even Val says to remove them from the registers, where do you after that?

I took the Static, Abel, Rorschach, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Multiphasic Sex Inventory. i scored low on all of them. When the results were presented at sentencing, the Judge said they did not apply to the case even though the Prosecutor accepted them. So, scoring low may not mean crap.
I went to someone like this on my own dime.
http://psycholegalassessments.com/areas-of-expertise/sex-offender-evaluation/

I understand that is the way it is now. I am talking about what if we could codify into law these risk assessments? What if a judge could not throw them out, but had to tier people based on the results? That would be a step in the right direction, and that is what I would like to see happen first. Then allow people to tier down off of that system, not the corrupt BS system we have now.

That system I could live with, even if we never got it completely abolished. I would be sad if abolishment didn't come to fruition, but life would be more tolerable than it is now. I F'ing understand what the fight is about cool rich !

I am not saying you don't understand. I just have a feeling that some of us here have been fighting longer than you.

You can think whatever you want. It's been over 10 years now for me, so if that's a short period if time I guess you have me beat.

I am saying we need to look at each offender as an individual. Each person should be placed in the system based on risk of recidivism. We shouldn't look at the label, but the risk. No different than what Gail Colletta of the Florida action commuter was championing for on the huff post live show. So cool rich I'm not sure what your problem is? You say that risk assessments didn't work for you , I get that, they don't work for anyone because for the most part the system is focused on the crime not risk.

I am simply asking what if that could be the case? And you are crapping all over it by saying it didn't work for you. News flash, it didn't work for ANY of us!