Sheriff Tim Lane in Scott County, Iowa spreads misinformation about the registry
According to Sheriff Tim Lane in Scott County, Iowa, “The recidivism rate for sex offenders is actually lower than it is for other crimes. I attribute that to the hard work of the Sheriff’s Department and the Iowa Department of Corrections.”
I have copied and am mailing all 26 pages of “The effectiveness of Sex Offender Registration and Notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings” to Sheriff Lane through the U.S. Mail.
One of the conclusions found in this extensive study: SORN policies have no effect on sexual and non-sexual crime commission over their period of existence, thereby failing to deliver on the intention of increasing public safety.
Other conclusions from the study: SORN policies may prove to be more harmful than helpful. It is time to make empirically informed decision, not ones based on emotions.
It would be good if other people would also send appropriate information to Sheriff Lane.
A special thank you to the FAC member that brought this to our attention.
Contact information:
563-326-8625
sheriff@scottcountyiowa.gov
So basically they’re using persons on the registrys’ low recidivism rate against us.we need god lawyers to counter that argument
Why would we need lawyers? We are not being sued or prosecuted. You can contact the media source or the Sheriff to counter that argument.
The counter-argument is that re-offense rates were low before we even had registries. They’re low in countries without public registries. Convicted sex offenders demonstrate low re-offense rates, regardless of what state or country or time period you’re looking at. Registries haven’t reduced them further. Check out FAC’s research page if you don’t believe me.
I’ll send this to Sheriff Lane or the reporter, but I’d also like our movement to be aware. Whenever we point out the re-offense rates of registrants, someone points to those rates as evidence that registration works. The point is that CONVICTED sex offenders exhibit low re offense rates whether registered or not.
Doesn’t a DOJ keep statistics that say the same thing? That registries don’t show any quantifiable affect on recidivism?
The political rhetoric goes up yet again, and seemingly always at the expense of our population.
It would probably be a good idea for every registrant to have an attorney on retainer. Just in case. Insurance policy.
Well he did get one part of his statement correct, we have one of the lowest rates for chances of re-offending. We do however have a higher chance of being re-arrested (Which is different) and that is no fault of our own.
No other group of people can be arrested and sent to prison decades over a “Non punitive crime” like a technical registry violation. Imagine the conversation in prison between two inmates. It goes something like this. “Hey bud I killed someone and got 15 years, what did you do”? “Oh I forgot to register my Toyota with the sheriff’s office and I got 20 years”.
Cherokeejack’s statement hits the nail square on the head. I’ve seen that many times.
That prison scenario sounds like it could be a conversation on the “Group W Bench” from Arlo Guthrie’s “Alice’s Restaurant Massacree” song.
the number of attention seeking sherriff’s emerging in this country is scary
What happened to just doing your job and going home?
No hope
Because Sheriff’s are elected officials and many of them go onto to run for mayor, Governor etc. Some of them were former police chiefs before becoming Sheriff. It is all politics. If you are soft on sex offenders, you “Just might not win the next election” is their thoughts.
Funny though, there are some counties in Florida you never hear of stings, signs, harassment etc from the sheriff. Maybe some of them actually solve real crimes not “Potential” crimes that Could happen.
The Sheriff taking false or ill-earned credit for something – like the sun rising every day – is akin to fraud, deception and manipulation. The Marshals have also been groomed, brainwashed and indoctrinated into thinking they’re “making a difference” with all these tag-a-long compliance stunts as well.
It would be cringey if it weren’t so patently false.
Facts
A few years back they came to my house. I peeked out the peep hole then went and looked myself up on the FDLE websites. I did not have any warrant so I did not go to the door. They sat in front of my house for 45 minutes before they gave up. The next check I had the deputy asked why I was not home and I reminded him that I was not on probation and never, ever have to be home.
I also reminded him that he has my cell phone # but always tells it has to be a random check. Have fun with that.
Exactly, we’re under no obligation to answer the phone. Especially when the caller is unidentified, private, or restricted.
A closed gate requires a warrant to enter.
I suggest keeping your information up to date. And having a cc camera at your house to show proof that you live there.
I was recently accused and “threaten” to be arrested because fdle said i was out of state a filled out an application for an apartment. Which btw neither are against the law.
They wanted to arrest before investigating. I was kinda hoping for a chance to slap them with a lawsuit.
The sheriff’s attribution of low recidivism rates to the registry and his department’s “hard work” is pure speculation that belies data and common sense. States without residence or presence restrictions don’t have higher sex crime recidivism than those that do. It seems the sheriff should focus his department’s hard work toward actually preventing crime.
Note that not one of the registrants profiled were arrested for another sex crime. Indeed, they would not have been arrested at all if there was no registry. Is Sheriff Lane up for reelection next week?