Human Rights Watch Report:
"No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the United States."

Apparently Family Watchdog and the Human Rights Watch have met to discuss the claims made by FW against the HRW report. In essence, they agree on one point, that they both support preventing sexual violence, and that is where consensus ends. Their "Statement of Cooperation" is on the HRW site dated 10-3-2007, there has been no collaboration between these organizations since that date;nothing.

In addition, FW announces the most insane program I have ever heard of, they propose, anyone -including RSOs- may submit CERTIFIED COURT and OTHER DOCUMENTS realted to the RSOs' crime to FAMILY WATCHDOG, so they may make them available to the public. But, read carefully, FW would then be a Central Repository of criminal records, stored in Indiana.

Then if someone wants to assess the risk of a RSO, they would have to -fly, drive, take a train, etc.- to Indiana where the records are stored, and by some magical means, read the documents and be able to determine the risk the RSO presents to the community. FW will not be assessing RSOs.

Any reasonable person can see the falacy of such a risk determination, those documents would be at the point of the crime and will not reflect what the RSO is like in today's light. FW, like so many politicians, are stuck in history refusing to recognize the RSOs' accomplishments, changes and system reforms since the crime. FW proposes such a system because it fosters a need for their cottage industry.

Further, FW made claims -unsupported by evidence- of the HRW's report. And, FW promised a full report by 9-17-07, none has ever been published. Now FW expects to be entrusted with documents when there are no laws protecting those documents or governing Family Watchdog's use of them. I would never recommend such a system in the hands of an uncontrolled and unregulated private party.

Note: Look closely at the documents FW will accept, then look closer at the documents FW will reject. FW will reject anything not on a public registry. None of what they will accept is on any public registry. Should someone want to assess the risk of a RSO and not live in Indiana, will FW then charge a fee to copy the records and mail them? Another cottage industry, and hopefully not a source for the newspapers.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Family Watchdog Issue 6 Claims:


Twisting the Numbers

Human Rights Watch Statement

(page 31) The overwhelming majority, 98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the one for which they were currently required to register.

Family Watchdog Conclusion (Response)

27.3% (3,586) of North Carolina's 13,104 registered sex offenders were convicted of multiple charges.

Background

HRW reviewed 500 of 10,000 offenders in one state to arrive at its conclusion that only 1.4% of offenders had multiple convictions. We analyzed registry convictions data for ALL 13,104 offenders in North Carolina. 3,586 offenders were convicted of multiple charges. Source: http://www.ncfindoffender.com

The Following by eAdvocate:

OK, what did HRW say:
p-32: Human Rights Watch analyzed the criminal histories reported on the registry for a statistically significant randomly chosen sample of 500 out of the total 10,073 registrants living in the community. The overwhelming majority, 98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the one for which they were currently required to register. The earliest date of release in the sample was 12 years ago, and no offender living in the community 10-12 years from release has been reconvicted for another sex offense. Of the 36 percent of the sample (183 offenders) who had been out of confinement for more than five but fewer than 10 years, only 2.19 percent (four offenders) had been reconvicted. All four of these recidivists were reconvicted for “indecent liberties with a minor.”

The first thing I see is, that the HRW was talking about a sample of offenders (500), while FW is talking about the entire registry. Further, there is a time and number difference in when HRW performed their study and when FW did its later review. (HRW= 10,073 -at the time- [could be 2 years ago], and FW= 13,104 when they reviewed the HRW report just before 9-14-07).

Next, FW uses the term "multiple charges" with respect to the entire registry. What does "multiple charges" mean, any kind of crime or what?

HRW says something totally different, "98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the ..," speaking about just sex offenses.

It appears FW is trying to make an apple look like a potatoe to confuse the public. FW is nitpicking without considering or comparing relevant facts.

Now, if you look real close at exactly what HRW said about the sample they used, "98.6% were one time sex offenders," that means the sex offender recidivism rate is a mere 1.4%. Are these laws necessary or justified for that?

Finally, should FW question mathematical calculations? FW has a page titled "Registered Sex Offender Counts by State" and they show a chart of the states and the number of registered sex offenders in each state registry (I have a pdf file of the page when accessed showing the numbers below if they make changes). Study the following states and figures copied from their undated chart (Notice they fail to indicate when these numbers are from, we know they are not from 2007):

StateNo. of OffendersPop. in ThousandsOffenders Per Million
AK4,3257006,050
DE2,0278002,533.8
ND307677453.5
SD2,4008102,693
VT331638518.8
WY1,1685682,056.3


How should I address this, well they are using decimal points so obviously they want it to be accurate. If a state does not have a million or more residents, how can the numbers being shown under "Offenders Per Million" be correct? Especially when for each state shown the number is higher than the number of registered offenders in those states.

Assume (which I hate to do) for a moment that they mean "Projected Per Million," if so, then the title of the page is incorrect and so is the title of that column. Nothing is footnoted for these states, so how accurate are FW calculations?

Given FW's logic, calculation, titling error or total inability to create a logical understandable chart (or they are "Twisting the Numbers" to stir up the public), should they be questioning HRW calculations or explanations of what is wrong with current laws?


UPDATE 9-28: They are making changes to the chart, but they still fail to see their errors. Maybe they are using a spreadsheet and are having trouble with formulas which would be understandable. Here is a book that might help!


Family Watchdog!
Posted by at 7:38 PM
Labels:

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)