Informing/Educating a Journalist
In Greenville County, SC, nine out of the 560 people forced to register for a sex offense were found not to be living where they said they were living or failed to register. What should have been the takeaway in this story: None of the 560 people was found to have committed a new sex offense. Isn’t this what society is most concerned about?
Peyton Furtado is a talented journalist who reported the facts that she found in a government report. Unfortunately, journalists often prefer government studies (which can be slanted) over ones from academia.
Stated in the article, “Operation Full Circle helps South Carolina deputies find more than 500 registered sex offenders”, was the following: According to the Department of Justice, 14% of males with a past sex offense commit a new sex crime within five years of release. The research used in this article comes from SMART (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking): “Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism” by Roger Przybylski.
FAC has sent information to the journalist Peyton.Furtado@hearst.com and station management management@wyff4.com. Past experience has shown that it takes a number of people reaching out to a journalist to get the misleading data corrected. We encourage other people to do so but only in a positive, supportive manner. Please do not just copy and paste but rather paraphrase and give your email a more personal touch.
Why are we doing this? It is important we stay abreast of what is happening around the country as we appreciate the support, input, and assistance we receive from other groups facing the same oppression from the government and their agencies, which continue to support clearly unconstitutional treatment of our population, thereby creating a less-favored class.
Possible Talking Points:
- This SMART study, that was used by the journalist, quoted a study performed by Harris and Hanson (2004) which showed a 5-year sexual recidivism rate of 14%. ACCORDING TO SMART, HARRIS AND HANSON “GENERATED RECIDIVISM ESTIMATES BASED ON NEW CHARGES OR CONVICTIONS FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES.” NOT REPORTED IS HOW MANY OF THESE NEW CHARGES WERE TURNED INTO CONVICTIONS!!! HOW MANY WERE TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS?
- FOOTNOTE #20, REFERRING TO ANOTHER STUDY THAT HANSON COAUTHORED, STATES: “THE DEFINITION OF RECIDIVISM VARIED WIDELY, RANGING FROM ARREST TO CONVICTIONS AND REPORTS PROVIDED BY PROBATION OFFICERS.” SO, HOW MANY WERE ACTUALLY CONVICTIONS? HOW MANY WERE TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS?
- There were many studies given in this SMART report, with the first one given being “perhaps the largest single study of sex offender recidivism conducted to date, carried out by Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003).” This study “accounted for about two-thirds of all male sex offenders released from state prisons in the United States” in 1994. Researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3 percent within 3 years of release. WHAT WAS NOT GIVEN WAS HOW MANY OF THE CHARGES WERE TURNED INTO CONVICTIONS!!! HOW MANY WERE TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS? But still the re-offense rate was NOT 14% for a 5-year follow-up period.
- Another important study in the SMART report (because of its large sample size) was performed by Sample and Bray (2003). Their findings resulted in a 4.8 percent sexual recidivism rate for 5 years. HOW MANY WERE ACTUALLY CONVICTIONS? HOW MANY WERE TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS? But still the re-offense rate was NOT 14% for a 5-year follow-up period.
- The SMART report used some of the larger studies on the sexual recidivism rates at the beginning of its discussion, where the rates were considerably lower than the 14% used by the journalist. Why did she choose to use a larger rate from a smaller study that followed in the report? Possibly Ms. Furtado did not read the SMART report but used the 14% rate from another source.
- In 2022, NARSOL compiled a “State by State Recidivism Studies” If you choose to use this information, it is copyrighted by NARSOL, so you must acknowledge NARSOL as the source of this information.
- We need to stop the myth of a 14% sexual recidivism rate for a 5-year release period for people whose most serious offense was a sexual offense.
I was convicted of a sex offense in 1978 served 3 years probation caught another offense in 1980. Both in Miami Fl. Where I served ten years at CCI came out in 1987 moved to Connecticut married raised three daughters for twenty years . When I moved to Florida in 2007 was extradited to Miami to be resent to prison. The judge heard my statement and denied their request but placed me on the registry for life. Have never committed any crimes but law enforcement has been arresting me for any reason.
@ Dennis
I sometimes feel like I would be safer in Russia than in Florida, and that is saying a lot towards how we are treated. Most of us have moved on and past our charges and are not on paper anymore. But we are being punished for life.
They keep saying it is not punishment but like two days ago when I got a fake call from someone saying I did not register my DNA, we are sitting ducks with anyone able to access our information.
If your story is honest, then you shouldn’t be on the registry, because you were not convicted of a sexual predator offense on or after October 1, 1993, and were not in prison or on probation for any sexual offense (whether a sexual offense or sexual predator offense) on or after October 1, 1997. You really need to talk to an attorney.
@Mike
My offense was 1991 but they still added me to registry in 1997. I have talked to several lawyers and none of them want to touch it and the ones who do, said until a judge throws out the retroactive application, there is nothing that can really be done.
Twenty one years and not even a parking ticket… how did that happen if you believe the study’s they quoted???
@Edward
In law enforcement’s and law makers minds, we have all just not been caught yet.
Twenty-four years and counting for me, although I’ve had a small number of traffic infractions during that time (adjudication was withheld for all). I guess we’re part of the 86%.
It’s worth the effort in hopes the same journalist won’t cite the same thing again. But for each incident the most you could hope for is a brief clarification as a retraction that practically no one will see, meanwhile the damage done by the original article will snowball.
I did not know that they even tinker with the definition of recidivism. So evil, to suggest that this term can even mean a report by a probation officer or accusations versus convictions.
Another example of the failure of the registry.
https://www.fox13news.com/news/disney-employee-among-80-men-arrested-in-horrific-polk-county-child-pornography-bust-deputies-say
try having a husband who years ago passed alie detector test bu cops attitude was kiids dont lie.and more to the story…wife who knew about inheritence held by husbands uncle..for husband who married two sisers one after other who didnt have problem with playing decieful trick on thier own sons thinking they the women would end up with the money..sick…if parties accused ended up dead in prison
@Nancy
As a former cop I can tell you this about lie detectors / Polygraph tests.
If you fail, they bring it up in court even though the courts say they cannot be used in court, law enforcement still mentions the fail to the jury to get it stuck in their heads and up to the defense to object.
And, if you pass, according to law enforcement, you are just a good liar.
I failed them for years even though I knew I was telling the truth. Years later I found out I have Afib, a heart condition and the doctor told me people who have that should not take a polygraph. Not because taking one harms your body but because the heart goes out of rhythm when you have an episode of afib and you might not even realize it.
@ Nancy:
There’s no such thing as a “lie detector test.” A polygraph is nothing but a prop in an interrogation where the results are predetermined 99 times out of a hundred. Specific to registrants, it’ used to circumvent the 5th Amendment. In investigations, it’s basically used to trick the subject into saying something incriminating whether it’s true or not.
Dustin
I refuse them now based on my doctors advice. He explained why I had random results on them and he said no one with Afib should ever take one. Those of us with afib (Racing heart) could be having an episode and not even realize it since it is normal for us. I do have medication now but it works about 65% of the time.
Meanwhile, Breitbart News is reporting that Facebook’s (AKA Meta) Instagram failed to stop a massive child porn ring from operating on its networks. Yet PFRs aren’t allowed on those networks. So it was people not forced to register who are the violators.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CtMmX1zLhlN/?igshid=MWQ1ZGUxMzBkMA==
Well, I’m also skeptical of the source Breitbart, which has been known to engage in conspiracy theories.