Just like in placebo research, the one who initiates (the seeker of the data) the experiment, study or research cannot be involved in its outcome or in the research itself. All scientists know this and the lay person should point this out and “YELL IT FROM THE ROOF TOPS” because the scientist will not, nor will the legislators or justices because it simply has not been revisited and really evaluated in reality!

I am quoting the below reference to illustrates a point although I am no expert on this subject. I leave it to the reader to think critically about any kind of research/ publication touting or parading itself as hard empirical cross validated scientific fact?

In essence I liken this (modern day sexual hysteria) to what is called in social structure and theory “victims of a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Erika

*Source: January 24, 2008, 11:35 pm
“How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes? – The Numbers Guy”

“In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes. “‘What we’re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time,” a California legislator told the New York Times in 1996. (Other examples of such rhetoric are collected here.) Fox News — like the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corp. — said of child molesters in 2005, “Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing children, but some eventually kill their young victims.”

But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out. Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self- reporting. But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “THERE IS NO RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THAT VIEW, PERIOD.”

Dr. Doren, evaluation director at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wisc., added, “You’re not talking to a bleeding-heart kind of guy here.”
Yet incorporating convicted sex offenders’ undetected crimes can lead to higher numbers, such as one controversial Canadian study that found long-term recidivism could be as high as 88.3%. (It was debated in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2006.) Critics say “THAT RATE WAS ARTIFICIALLY INCREASED BY DESIGN.” …”

It appears that this program(1) has a ZERO recidivism rate?

Erika

1) “… The RESTORE Program of Restorative Justice for Sex Crimes: Vision, Process, and Outcomes Mary P. Koss, PhD1 Abstract Journal of Interpersonal Violence …”

“… The article reports empirical evaluation of RESTORE, a restorative justice (RJ) conferencing program adapted to prosecutor-referred adult misdemeanor and felony sexual assaults. RESTORE conferences included voluntary enrollment, preparation, and a face-to-face meeting where primary and secondary victims voice impacts, and responsible persons acknowledge their acts and together develop a re-dress plan that is supervised for 1 year. Process data included referral and consent rates, participant characteristics, observational ratings of conferences compared with program design, services delivered, and safety monitoring. Outcome evaluation used 22 cases to assess (a) pre–post reasons for choosing RESTORE, (b) preparation and conference experiences, (c) overall program and justice satisfaction, and (d) completion rates. This is the first peer-reviewed quantitative evaluation of RJ conferencing for adult sexual assault. Although the data have limitations, the results support cautious optimism regarding feasibility, safety, and satisfactory outcomes. They help envision how conferencing could expand and individualize justice options for sexual assault. Keywords restorative justice, sexual assault, rape, sexual crime, criminology, victimology, law and justice, offender treatment, victim–offender dialogue, violence prevention. …”

Source: University of Arizona, Tucson, USA Corresponding Author: Mary P. Koss, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 1295 N. Martin Street, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA. Email: mpk@u.arizona.edu

The U.S. public has nothing against paying extra taxes to persecute this category of citizens further; and in fact would welcome a tax increase in order to amend and increase the restrictions embodied in the SORNA and IML.

In the wake of U.S. v. Nichols, it is foreseeable is that U.S. citizen RSOs will not be allowed to expatriate, and will have to register while living and visiting abroad; quite possibly with local authorities paid by the U.S. government. Naturally U.S. citizen RSOs will also be subject to international residency restrictions and the like, enforced by local law enforcement, again on the U.S. payroll. That is indeed the least the United States, as the bastion of democracy and human rights, could do to protect fellow innocent humans in foreign countries from being preyed upon by mentally deranged U.S. citizen predators.

These restrictions will not be considered punitive in nature, as they merely further a legitimate government objective and the regulatory purpose of protecting members of the foreign public. These added restrictions will also ensure that RSOs continue to enjoy the benefits and protection provided by U.S. law, no matter where they attempt to reside. The United States only wants to help its own citizens, and citizens of the world!

Representative Smith could run for office based on this worthy crusade alone!
We should make the future crown on his head lighter by faxing and e-mailing him various creative ideas of how to increase the restrictions on RSOs living and travelling abroad, to make the U.S. government safety net impenetrable.
In order to guarantee that RSOs get the supervision and help they need for their intractable condition. The American public will love it!

According to my reading of the decision, the judge was in some doubt as to who would be affected. That is obvious hogwash as the law was fairly specific on who would be subject to the scarlet letter. It sure wasn’t organized crime or other groups that are most likely the perpetrators of sex trafficking.

And P.S.: What exactly is TRUE reasoning for felons to not be allowed to interact with each other?
Is it the opinion of the legal system that if convicted criminals congregate they might conspire to commit a crime?
Oh my goodness! Because, you know, people with NO criminal record have EVER done that. Smh

Since most probation terms are extremely long (10 yrs in most cases), then you can bet there won’t be many people off of probation to gather together and fight this battle. Most of the battle may even have to do with the draconian probation conditions. And unfortunately, when people are done with probation, they move on and don’t care to look back to fight anything.

I’ve made this argument time and time again and no one listens because we all are somehow brainwashed into believing that probation is needed as part of a sentence. It is not.

We all know (or should know) that probation can be avoided by taking longer prison times. This is reason #1 why the probation department is a waste of tax payer money.
The 2nd fact that probation is pointless is that once we do complete it, all those LEGAL things that we were not allowed to do….we can suddenly do! Omg! I can use Internet, own 20 laptops if I want, go where I want without asking permission or travel passes and guess what…. I’m STILL the same person who once committed a sexual offense 10 yrs ago.

We may all be scared to congregate but think about this for a moment – If 5000 SO’s on probation in a particular state made a stand together, do you REALLY think that any state is going to have room in the jail/prison system to put 5000 people in it on the spot? They couldn’t. The courts would be dumbfounded at having 5000 people taking turns standing before a judge on top of all the other cases that judge needs to hear.

Police probably don’t even have 5000 pairs of handcuffs. Probation officers would lose a LOT of clients (aka Job Security).
If a person can submit themselves to an extra 1 or 2 years (for example) during their initial plea bargain in order to avoid having probation after release, then no one needs probation at all. Not an SO, not a DUI, not a car jacker, NO ONE. It eventually comes to an end anyway and then what? We fear the person more? If someone has a criminal mindset, they’re going to do it on or off probation. Probation is yet another one of the “false sense of security” schemes and even many of us on it fall for it. It’s BS!
But no attorney or groups of attorneys are ever going to fight to end a “business” that’s been making money for something like 100 yrs or so.

I challenged the probation dept. I filed a civil rights complaint against them.
When the day came to go to the organization to make my argument (it was myself and a probation director) as to why I feel that probation was violating my civil rights and overall treating me as if I am inhuman, the person I spoke to was as brain dead as most people are in saying “You just gotta play their game and ride it out. It’ll be over before you know it”. Well that’s not exactly the type of life I’m trying to live. I’m not interested in playing games and pretending that I’m not interested in the ever changing ways of technology and socializing. Sorry probation officer person, but I’m not exactly privy to being a loner for 10 yrs.

It’s so obvious that probation is more a hinderence than a help for ANYONE. Client, victim (if there is one), family and community.
Story after story we hear about PROBATION causing people to become homeless because even though there may not be actual residency restrictions in your area, your probation officer can refuse you to live certain places. Like what happened to me and why I attempted to challenge them.

Probation officers coming to your home (provided you have a home) at hours as late as 11pm and expect you to get out of bed and come to the door. God forbid if you’re sleeping and the next time you see your PO he/she starts grilling you about where you were when they came-a-knockin!

This is how I see it and I don’t truly wish this on anyone so please understand what my point in this next statement is – If the courts don’t TRUST us for the 5 or 10 yrs they would give us on probation, then just either A) Keep us in prison for the rest of our lives or, B) Put EVERY criminal offender on probation for the rest of their lives.
Because it truly doesn’t make any damn sense that a person can’t use a computer or have a cocktail with friends for only a DURATION OF TIME. We are on the OUTSIDE, not locked up on the INSIDE any more and when I’m working and I know that MY tax dollars are going into the paychecks of a legalized BULLY SYSTEM, I am not a happy camper.