Reply To: Deadly collateral consequences of the “non-punitive” sex offender registry



A complicating factor is the propagation of “risk assessment” tools such as the Static-99R. In California, for example, the tiered registry law will use the Static-99R to place people into Tier III. Currently, the Megan’s Law profile for each offender may have a risk assessment score that purports to classify people in risk levels from low to high. Unfortunately, such Static-99R — or SARATSO — scores are mostly misleading because they are the “risk” estimates from when a person is released from incarceration and/or sentenced (the latter if an offender is sentenced to straight probation).

The most significant flaw to Karl Hanson’s Static schemes is that they are *not* at all dynamic risk assessments. The flaw is right in its name: Static. The Static doesn’t estimate a person’s alleged risk as a person ages and matures. Nor does the Static even account for the number of years a person has been offense-free in the community. Even Hanson’s own coding rules state that “risk” is halved for every five years offense-free. So after a person has been offense-free in the community for at least five years, even the “highest” risk scorers no longer fit the definition for high risk sex offender after five years offense-free.

The fear is that those given the “high risk sex offender” (HRSO) label will soon be targeted with at least as much vitriol to those deemed “sexually violent predators.” Nonetheless, sex offender registration schemes do nothing to protect the public since about 95% of those who commit a sex crime were first-time offenders. Of course, our politicians conveniently ignore any true empirical data that argue against a registry. Rather, for reasons that many have speculated are related to propping the pseudo forensic psychology and “treatment” businesses, politicians and Fake Doctors rely exclusively on Fake Science such as Karl Hanson’s Static-99R.