Comments on: New York Times: “Vanishingly” little evidence of high re-offense rate

By: John schultz

John schultz — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:14:22 +0000

Question to fellow RCs, please don’t throw tomatoes and old shoes, ok? Here goes nothing…supposing any of us relied on bogus info and our negligence severely impacted. countless lives, would there be consequences? For certain..we would probably get fired, and for sure sued, and maybe even charged with some made up crime. So tell me, why can’t we all as a class sue the freaking government and the Supreme Court for their negligence and conspiracy to perjure? Every RSO should get 100 a day for each day forced to register. Just my thoughts, just saying.

By: John schultz

John schultz — Sun, 10 Sep 2017 15:04:47 +0000

Shout out to M. Hamilton, nicely done. I read your paper and I thought it was excellent and very convincingly written. This RSO wants to say thank you for courage and voice. Sincerely, John schultz

By: TImothy E

TImothy E — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:40:35 +0000

In reply to jerry.

Jerry,

My friend, while you are lamenting the group classification of all S.O.’s, are you not, in turn lumping all of us who DID NOT partake in those so-called “treatment” programs as prone to recidivism? I refused to sit in those programs during my 20 years in prison; know what? I am rated as “low risk” while almost all of those who sat in said programs were rated either “moderate” or “high” risk during our pre-release evaluation.

Then, there are a boat load of studies which show the so-called treatment programs tend to give a higher rate of re-offending for those who partake thereof, than for those who did not partake. You seem it imply that only those who sat in said programs can turn their lives around. Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, it is an individual thing finding the desire in the heart, and not an exclusive trait for only those who sat in those “programs?”

Since my release 6 years ago, I have completed a “double major” in Pre-law & Paralegal Studies and shall soon being the task of seeking a related Masters for a fully accredited and well respected university. Besides these accomplishments, I have built a nice luthier business. I also have prison friends who never sat in those so-called “programs” and are doing well, despite the draconian laws of society whose jackboots are upon all of our necks. Just something to ponder, my friend……..

https://sosen.org/blog/2016/10/…/so-why-are-the-reconviction-rates-so-important.htm..

By: jerry

jerry — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 03:05:33 +0000

Adam Liptak, what really has been bothering me, is not so much the lack of empiricle evidence supporting the frightening and high comments that saturate every level of courts in this country from 2002 to 2017, but how the paragraph has been constantly misquoted. The paragraph in the Psychology Today article read; “The recidivism rate for “UNTREATED” sex offenders is 80%, and that’s frightening and high, but the recidivism rate for TREATED sex offenders is around 15%”. Now I am a treated sex offender who successfully completed treatment while incarcerated. I would like to know why the treated offenders were thrown in with the untreated offenders while these laws were being drawn up. There should have been some considerations taken into account for those of us that sought treatment and turned our life around

By: Anthony

Anthony — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 14:50:02 +0000

The Assistant Solicitor Attorney General that argued the registration laws in front of the U.S. Supreme court used fraudulent statistical data (presented false evidence) with no independent corroboration to support his claims to have this horrible decision rendered by the Justices. Another constitutional challenge will be submitted to overturn this unconstitutional law.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 21:39:50 +0000

Well this is a great step to have an article in the newspaper of record