Reply To: NARSOL in Vancouver at ATSA conference


Here’s what absolutely blows my mind; flips my lid:

The ones who have LEGITIMATE EXPERTISE in the field of sex offender treatment agree that these harsh laws are counterproductive in every imaginable way to lowering the recidivism rates of sexual offenders OF ALL STRIPES. The state appoints such experts to evaluate offenders who may be truly ready to leave civil commitment, but when they make a recommendation TO RELEASE, the state wants to go back and say the word OF THEIR OWN EXPERTS isn’t good enough. In other words, the politicians won’t listen to the experts who truly know what they’re talking about. They follow their own prejudices and passions as well as those of the ill-informed, vindictive, hateful and unforgiving public at large.

Multiple states have crunched the numbers on sex offender recidivism and found a uniform rate that ranges from 3 to 5% and yet judges want to overlook these very recent scientific, peer-reviewed studies that are backed by scientific empirical evidence and rely on a poor ruling from the highest court in the land which was based on an unscientific article by Robert Freeman-Longo which claimed a “frightening and high” recidivism rate of 80-85% of sex offenders that was not subjected to peer review in any way and that had no evidence whatsoever to back it up that was published 32 YEARS AGO IN A POP. PSYCHOLOGY MAGAZINE. The deliberate indifference to the empirical scientific facts is mind-boggling. I don’t see how judges can get by with such blatant judicial activism. That’s what it is pure and simple. Judges almost break their backs in far too many cases because they bend over backwards to find the most convoluted reasoning to uphold the sex offender laws and restrictions at any cost.