Reply To: *NEW UPDATES*–In the rain, in the cold, tent in woods still stands

#8803
Avatar
Erika

Something just hit me from out of the blue, maybe you could sift pasta (holes in argument) with it but here it goes:

My supposition is this:

All the legislative “intent” behind these laws are predicated on certain factors that contains similar language or reasoning nationally that give creedance to why it should exist?

You see terms such as this[*] (see below)

My proposed question is this ‘COMPARED TO WHAT SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION?’

This a very important question!

There is the general run of the mill vanilla argument of the BJS 3% recidivism base rate that will not ever change (what I was told by 3 expert staticians) WITH or WITHOUT a registry. That means 95% DO NOT REOFFEND SEXUALLY, leaving 5% that will; but who in that 5% will re-offend sexually? Any increase, decrease or fluctuation of this base rate sample (that’s all you need) would be due to the number of states included in the study, severe population increase or decrease however it would be slight. You only need a 10 or 7 year sample.

Then there is the comparison for lowest recidivism rate besides murder for recidivism after a completing a prison sentence for any other kind of offender OR CRIME etc…

That granted!

Now back to “segmenting” and creating laws around that “segment” because that “segment” is less worthy of “civil rights” because they are “at risk” prone to do this or that because this says that or because I (we) just think this or that absent any hard cross-validated proof for invoking and enacting draconian measures etc…

Most lawmakers do not even understand what is really going on they just vote to vote because everybody else is voting that way and lunch time is around the corner and who has time to really investigate and besides because they were told it is a “bi partisan” issue and “non-controversial public matter” they just vote etc…

Now time for the BIGGER QUESTION what is the RISK of the entire population of any given state to OFFEND SEXUALLY compared to what? (a one time sex offender?)

Now with that in mind where is the claim that “PUBLIC SAFETY,” is being “served” and that it “offers” “PROTECTION” and is that even possible? Remember for any “threat to public safety” to be “valid” it must be an “actual threat” not an “imagined threat.” This would overide any constitutionally protected rights according to the intent of the constitution.

How many sex crimes (are one time sex offenders to blame?) occur within the state or within the boundaries of any given territories population base?

WHAT WOULD QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH SAY ABOUT THIS:

1.) Is there really a threat (more of a threat, less of a threat) compared to the population base?

2.) Can it be prevented?

3.) Who is to blame? (95% blamed for the behaviors 5% hmmm? That warrants probation like reporting requirements and restrictions? (Not arguing the point of the ability to have a registry archive!)

5.) Is causing more violent or mortality related sex crimes to happen?

6.) Is it increasing types of sexual recidivism?

7.)___________{fill in the blanks}___________.

[*]Glossary of Terms:

“threat”

“safety”

“analysis”

“actuarial”

“static”

“dynamic”

“assessment”

“pose”

“risk”

“significant risk”

“protection”

“health”

“dangerous (ness)”

“finds”

“findings”

“public”

“self”

“sex”

“offender(s)”