We now have added "Informational Posts" which are tidbits of information that may come in handy at some point.

New York State Registry Recidivism Rates

Source: Research Bulletin:
Sex Offender Populations, Recidivism and Actuarial Assessment pg-3
by NYS Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives

WOW, this is interesting.
In this report before the entire NYS Senate,
look how these lawmakers presented the above statistic:

Notice what they left out, actual same crime recidivism. Now what did they say in this report before other lawmakers? Read below from pg-5 of this report.

Recidivism Among Sex Offenders:
One of the primary reasons that these restrictions are in place is to limit a sex offender’s interaction with children. The alarmingly high recidivism rate among sex offenders makes it imperative that they be watched – especially those convicted of preying on children. The New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives reported in 2007 that of 19,837 sex offenders on the sex offense registry, 15 % were rearrested within one year of registration, 24% within two years, 41% within five years and 48% within eight years.

By limiting their access to schools, and other locations where children may congregate, including day care and other locations the State can also limit sex offenders’ access to children, thereby protecting the most vulnerable members of society. Because the intent of SORA and these residency restriction requirements was to protect all children and victims of sexual predators, not just those attending programs tied to a grade school, we must act to close this loophole as well as many others that have been identified.

Did they lie? Nope, did they mislead other lawmakers? Yes, no doubt!

Worse yet, there is no definition of recidivism in either of these reports. Does it mean, rearrest, reconviction, return to prison and does it include TECHNICAL violations which are not new crimes; folks on parole or probation can be arrested for technical violations.

Finally, nowhere in either report is there a single mention of WHERE the RECIDIVISM occurred, or whether where it occurred had anything to do with the place/s this law is trying to protect?

If the recidivism occurred somewhere not related to area of the place/s the law is trying to protect, then this is a misuse of known recidivism rates and such rates will not be affected (a waste of taxpayer money and resources) and no one be will protected. Think about it...

No comments: