SENATOR MIKE MAZZEI-OKLAHOMA UNABLE TO PROVIDE COM

[MSLGWCEO]

SENATOR MIKE MAZZEI-OKLAHOMA UNABLE TO PROVIDE COMPELLING EVIDENCE

SENATOR MIKE MAZZEI-OKLAHOMA UNABLE TO PROVIDE COMPELLING EVIDENCE

This is an indictment against the vast majority of law makers in Oklahoma. They have passed laws that endanger children rather than protect. Laws based on myths, lies and emotional hysteria, promoted by the entertainment news media and politicians who for ratings and votes have refused to bring in the experts when making laws dealing with the sex offender issues. Laws that do more harm than good.

http://cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=223%3Asenator-mike-mazzei-oklahoma-unable-to-provide-compelling-evidence&Itemid=1

[TeeDub]

You are such an apologist.

Your letters don't even make sense.  So the media shouldn't pick on child molesters?   Or they should only pick on the ones that aren't your friends?

"Though I agree that the sexual abuse of children is one of the most disturbing crimes in our society, the reaction in the media has been somewhat one sided, and very unfair to many reformed offenders who pose no risk at all."

[MSLGWCEO]

US Department of Justice, 2003
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm
• Sample size – 9,700 sex offenders

• Length of time – 3 years
• Re-offense trigger – reconviction (Doesn't mean a new sex crime)
• Results – 5.3% sexual offence. 3.3% child molestation. Text

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm

Highlights include the following:

* Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%),
burglars (74.0%),
larcenists (74.6%),
motor vehicle thieves (78.8%),
those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%),
and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
* Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2%
of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment

[MSLGWCEO]

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 12:42 PM
To: mazzei@oksenate.gov
Subject: Sex Offender Legislation


Dear Mr. Mazzei,
I am somewhat of an activist in the area of sex offender legislation since my innocent life as a family member continues to be adversely affected by the onslaught of questionable efforts in the name of public safety. The question is "are these new laws truly preventing sexual abuse?" I think not, and a proper analysis of the relative statistics will show that recidivism rates have remained almost the same, and in some cases, have increased, since the beginning of these legislative attacks on "former" sex offenders.
   I've noticed a trend in sex offender legislation.  It seems to start with a heinous crime committed against a child, public outrage at ALL former sex offenders ensues, and legislation is quickly proposed to 'solve' the problem.  Though I agree that the sexual abuse of children is one of the most disturbing crimes in our society, the reaction in the media has been somewhat one sided, and very unfair to many reformed offenders who pose no risk at all.  Punishment is a great deterrent, and statistics show that 95% of former offenders do not re-offend. Punishment works, as does treatment, when it is done properly by skilled practitioners.  Why do you allow the abuse of the Bill of Rights to continue with these numerous ex post facto laws (registration, notification and residency restriction laws) that show no evidence of reducing sexual abuse in our communities?
   I'm sure you're aware that our Justice Department has found that within 3 years of an offender's release, less than 4% of sex offenders strike again.
1.   These statistics have remained the same since the mid 1980's. I tend to conclude that these registration laws and residency restrictions are not having the desired public safety benefits, nor are they cost effective. Proponents of these laws can show no credible evidence that they are effective, and it should be clear that since the statistics have remained the same since the mid 1980's, these laws are not worth the trouble. Better solutions must be found.
   I also know that many families have been, and continue to be, devastated by these new laws. Many men and women who are not violent or predatory offenders are being forced out of their homes, with their children, and are forced to live in tents and under bridges.
2.   Other families are losing their "bread winners" because of the hysteria created concerning former sexual offenders, which, are mostly based on myths. These new laws are forcing former offenders into a state of vagrancy and disenfranchisement in various parts of the Country. This cannot possibly serve a public safety interest. In fact, this is bound to increase the risk. It is no secret to those closely associated with this subgroup in America, that the keys to success lie in reintegration through a supportive living arrangement, employment and treatment.  When laws are passed that severely curtail the ability to achieve these factors, society is left unprotected from angry offenders who are failing to live a law-abiding life post incarceration. Former sex offenders are American citizens too, and do have civil rights that need to be protected. The cumulative effect of these laws could conceivably lead a former offender with nothing more to lose to "snap" and cause grave harm to the general public.
   I believe that the solution to the sexual abuse problem will only be found through responsible education and social reform. Children are much better educated about the sexual abuse issue these days and Parents are far better equipped to monitor the email and chat room habits of their children than the Governments. As long as these issues become part of our education system, the potential for sexual violence against children will continue to decline.
   Perhaps developing an understanding for how sexual deviants are created would lead to more viable solutions to the problem, rather than focusing on costly and counterproductive legislation?
3.  I hope you will consider the following:
The unintended consequences of retroactive residency restrictions on the innocent family members of former offenders will be enormous.
Forcing former offenders to register their email addresses with the authorities will serve no legitimate public safety purpose. Authorities will be "chasing their tales" in a cumbersome effort to curb sexual abuse through monitoring emails, most of which will prove to be a waste of time and manpower. It's the responsibility of parents to monitor their own child's email and chat room activity, not the Government's.
Retroactive civil laws that have punitive affects on the people subject to them; even though deemed civil, are wrong. Please oppose retroactive application(s) of any law.
4.  Considering the frustrations imposed by these new laws after one has lived a law-abiding life for years after incarceration, many ex-offenders will feel hopeless and may end up not caring about other people at all. Many evil deeds are born out of desperation. It serves no purpose to create an entire population of desperate people if the goal is personal accountability.   Accountability is not born out of despair, it is born out of support.
I urge you to please make "careful consideration" your priority.  Please understand that socially abusive policies that serve to isolate and humiliate offenders is one of many elements that contribute to the cognitive evolution of most sexual abusers and can have a positive or negative effect. It is your duty to ensure that the effect is positive in order to meet your goal of increasing public safety.  To enact laws that encourage social abuse and banishment will not prevent the sexual abuse of children, but rather, it will most likely increase that potential among others.
I urge you to review the data provided by Dr. Jill Levenson recently at a Harvard University event regarding residency restrictions, among many others. Dr. Levenson is a well respected and leading researcher in the area of residency restrictions and has provided invaluable information on this subject.   (I can forward you a copy of her PDF's if you don't have them). The bottom line is that residency restrictions are not evidence based, serve no legitimate purpose in reaching their goal (increased safety) and can have the opposite effect of increasing several of the risk factors that lead to criminal behavior.

Respectfully Submitted,

[TeeDub]

http://www.ps-sp.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200407_1-en.asp

When the whole sample was examined, it was found that within the first five years of release, 14% had a new charge or conviction for a sexual offense.

Offenders with no previous sexual offences recidivated at about half the rate of repeat sexual offenders (19% vs. 37% after 15 years). Additional analyses indicated that "boy victim" child molesters sexually re-offended at a higher rate than rapists who, in turn, recidivated more often than "girl victim" child molesters or incest offenders. It was also found that offenders over the age of 50 re-offended less often than younger offenders. As well, the longer an offender remained offence-free in the community, the less likely they were to re-offend.

[MSLGWCEO]

Revisiting Department of Justice Recidivism Statistics and More Shocking Truths

http://cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144:revisiting-department-of-justice-recidivism-statistics-and-more-shocking-truths&catid=38:news-articles&Itemid=80

9-8-2008 National:

Every so often someone dismisses a sex offender study on grounds that make no sense, today we have such a case. The sex offender study is about recidivism (of former sex offenders), and first time sex offenders (former non sex offenders), the study: "Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994" (198281) published by the Department of Justice in November 2003. Follow highlighting of former sex offenders and former non sex offenders.

The claim:


The claim:

This study is no good because it doesn't address registered sex offenders and non sex offenders. Given it does address non sex offenders which I'll explain in a minute, I cannot see why it should address registered sex offenders. The reason is simple, the study includes newly released prisoners in 1994, followed for three years, and the majority of the states did not even have a registration requirement back then. With that said, on to the relevant issues:

This is an excellent study because of who it covers (target subjects). That year there were 272,111 prisoners released from prison in 15 states (Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia). Of the 272,111 prisoners 9,691 were former sex offenders and that represented 2/3rds of all released sex offenders in the nation that year. This study included ALL of them, and that makes this study unique.

Here is the breakdown of released prisoners(pg-7):
9,691 Sex Offenders Released
262,420 Other Offenders Released
272,111 Total Offenders Released

Those are KEY facts showing the study covers former sex offenders and former non sex offenders (others offenders). Anyone in prison for a crime other than a sex offense is a former non sex offender.

Who commits more sex crimes, former sex offenders -or- former non sex offenders?

First, a overall recidivism chart created from statistics in the study:

Click to see "Overall Sex Offender" Recidivism Rates



Now, most folks will claim, but sex offenders are 4 times more likely to commit a sex offense than a non sex offender after being released from prison. True, that is what the study says, but thats only PART of what the study says, see:

   Rearrest for a new sex crime: Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517 of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of 262,420).(pg-7)

Now, notice the under lined portion, that talks about non sex offenders, those who were in prison for other offenses (former non sex offenders). REVELATION, former non sex offenders -after release- went on to commit first time sex offenses, thats a fact!

   Statistics can play tricks on one's mind: Notice, 5.3% of the former sex offenders were rearrested for a new sex crime while only 1.3% of the former non sex offenders were rearrested for a sex offense. Sounds like the real bad guys are the former sex offenders, right? WRONG, lets change those percentages into real numbers (real sex crimes): 5.3% = 517 sex crimes, and, 1.3% = 3,328 sex crimes IN THE SAME TIME PERIOD! So, former sex offenders committed 517 sex crimes -and- former non sex offenders committed 3,328 sex crimes. Study that, let it sink in, then look at the chart above. Shocking enough?

Who should society be more concerned about?

The laws targeting former sex offenders MAY prevent some recidivism, but lawmakers have totally ignored the group causing the majority of NEW sex crimes by former prison inmates. Now, for every ONE sex crime committed by a former sex offender, there are SIX sex crimes committed by former non sex offenders.

That folks is something lawmakers simply ignore, and focus on former sex offenders. Now, consider this, all those NEW sex crimes committed by former non sex offenders, is causing further public and lawmaker hysteria of former sex offenders!


What distinguishes this study from many other recidivism studies?

Sex offender recidivism studies can be misleading because often a study will look at a SPECIFIC SUB GROUP of sex offenders, and ignore other sub groups. Frequently, a speaker will latch on to such a study and claim it pertains to ALL sex offenders, and in so doing distorts the truth.

This DOJ study FIRST looks at ALL sex offenders released and provides recidivism statistics that way. So, remember, when discussing ALL SEX OFFENDERS then the overall rates can be used and will be correct.

Now Subgroups: When a study looks at "rapists" or "child molesters" or "pedophiles" or "adult molesters" or "statutory rapists" or "Romeo and Juliet" cases, or "Lolita" cases, or "stranger" cases, or just high profile cases, or other sub groupings of sex offenders, then they are looking for something about that sub group.

Yes, these are different groupings of sex offenders, and when subgroups are addressed. it EXCLUDES all other sub groups of sex offenders. This is done to generate specific stats which is normal if the researcher has a reason to do so, but remember, sub group recidivism rates CANNOT be used when speaking of ALL SEX OFFENDERS.

How are subgroups formed?

Well, the facts of the crime dictates what subgroup an offender will fall into, and an offender can fall into more than one subgroup.

Scenario-1: Suppose a offender commits a sex crime against a minor which the offender does not know. The offender would be a "child molester" and also be grouped as a "stranger" case. If the offender knew the victim or was part of the daily life of the victim, then it would not be a "stranger" case

Scenario-2: Suppose John and Mary are dating and having sex, Mary is a minor and John turns 18. This is tricky because both before and after John turns 18 he is a "child molester" according to the law, because Mary cannot give consent under the law. Now this is also what is known as a "Romeo & Juliet" case hence different subgroups.

Scenario-3: Suppose Sam is attracted to young children and has downloaded hundreds of pictures of child pornography, given those facts he would be a "pedophile." However, suppose Peter, also attracted to children, but has been going to a psychiatrist and has been diagnosed as suffering from "pedophilia" using the DSM-IV (Code 302.2) which is described in the DSM-IV) but has not committed any offense against a child. Is he a "pedophile," yes. Now, suppose George a RSO having committed ONE sex crime against a child and lives down the street from you. Is he a "pedophile," no. George's case does not show facts to indicate he is a "pedophile." i.e., a preference for children (one time conviction, without additional facts, fails to show a preference).

   A problem with the dictionary definitions of pedophile: Some are misleading and define "pedophile" as one who prefers sex with children -and others- as one who commits a sex crime with a child (lacking "preference" this may be incorrect).

   Failing to include some context of "preference" (which supports the DSM-IV definition), -or- in the case of child pornography above which shows a preference, i.e., downloaded many pictures of child porn. Pedophiles prefer!

Now, is John (the one who was dating Mary above) a pedophile? Given the above facts, no, he is a person in a dating relationship and ab scent facts showing a improper preference for children, he is not a pedophile. So before labeling someone a "pedophile" you need to know facts of the case, lest you be wrong. With all that said, "pedophiles" are one subgroup of sex offenders.

Scenario-4: Now, suppose Luke is attracted to and prefers girls who are about 14-17, he is known as a "EPHEBOPHILE: An adult affected with ephebophilia (age attraction 14-17)." Age is where we get into a problem because "children" in most of today's laws means someone under 18, but in the psych world pedophiles are mostly associated with prepubescent children. This point with be argued for years to come and never settled one way or the other; I'll let it rest here.

I could go on and on with subgroups of sex offenders but I need to get back to the study.

Does the DOJ Study Address ANY subgroups of sex offenders?

Yes, the DOJ addressed subgroups which were important to the public. Before looking at which subgroups a note is important: No other study -bar none- has put the subjects under the microscope and analyzed them, six ways to Sunday as they say, as this study has. That is why this study has more value than any other study at this time.

The DOJ analyzed offenders' crimes and found they fall into the following subgroups (remember, some offenders -based on the facts of their crime- may fall into more than one subgroup, so the sum of the following will be greater than 9,691, total released):

3,115 were rapists;
6,576 were sexual assaulter;
4,295 were child molesters;
443 were statutory rapists.

Now I am going to focus on one subgroup, child molesters, and my reason is, because ALL new laws governing sex offenders nationally, is driven by the cry of "to protect children." Again, from statistics provided in the DOJ study the following chart was compiled to pull together recidivism rates as to children:

Click to see "Child Molester" Recidivism Rates



This chart shows us that 2.2% of all sex offenders released from prison, and followed for 3 years, went on to be rearrested for a new sex crime against a child. The chart shows the breakdown of that number.

Now, remember my earlier comment "Who should society be more concerned about?", released sex offenders -or- released non sex offenders. The DOJ found that released non sex offenders go on to commmit MORE NEW SEX OFFENSES than released sex offenders.

Well, get ready top be shocked again, released non sex offenders go on to commit approximately FIVE new sex offenses to every ONE committed by a released sex offender AGAINST A CHILD. See the chart, released sex offenders committed 213 new sex crimes against children, BUT, released non sex offenders committed 1,042 in the same time period (3 years).

A fact revealed by the Department of Justice which lawmakers are aware of and do nothing about, non sex offenders are more dangerous to the community!

Residency type laws: Laws prohibiting residing, loitering, etc., within xx feet of schools, playgrounds, parks, day cares, churches and other places where children MIGHT congregate, are targeted to the group LEAST LIKELY to commit a crime against a child. Lawmakers permit other released offenders to reside and enter these areas, and do nothing about them. Why are lawmakers so blind?

Internet Restrictions: Lawmakers are passing laws to gather up e-mail addresses and other Internet IDs and some even go after the paswords. Again, the cry is to protect children! Which released offender is MOST LIKELY to commit a crime against a child? Right, non sex offenders, the statistics prove that. Lawmakers still do nothing with respect to released non sex offenders and Internet restrictions. Again, why are lawmakers so blind?

Parks: Lawmakers are passing laws and ordinances to prohibit all sex offenders from entering parks. Which released offender is MOST LIKELY to commit a crime against a child? Right, non sex offenders, the statistics prove that. Lawmakers still do nothing with respect to released non sex offenders and parks. Again, why are lawmakers so blind?


So my question is simple, if non sex offenders released from prison are causing 86.6% of all new sex offenses, and, 83% of all new sex crimes against children, why do lawmakers do nothing about this? The evidence is in lawmakers hands, they ignore it. Why?

I'll take an answer from anyone, that is a logical answer.

[TeeDub]

How about a 10 year study done by the state of Ohio?

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf

The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%.

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

[TeeDub]

Oh, I and no I didn't read your response as a two page cut and paste proves nothing about why you are pushing so hard to get sex offenders released and not punished.

[MSLGWCEO]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


How about a 10 year study done by the state of Ohio?

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf

The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%.

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

* Ohio - (2006) http://www.ocjs.state.oh.us/Research/Sex%20Offender%20Report%20pdf.pdf
Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2001
http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf
• Length of Study – 10 years
• Sample size – 14,261 offenders
• Re-offense trigger – re-incarceration
• Results: Total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of supervision conditions, was 11%. New sex crime after 10 years – 8%,

* Minnesota - (2007) http://www.doc.state.mn.us/documents/04-07SexOffenderReport-Recidivism.pdf
Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1999
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:FSqlN1LCgcIJ:www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/pdf/1999%2520CBSOPEP%2520Report%2520to%2520the%2520Legislature.PDF+community-based+sex+offender+program+evaluation+project+minnesota+1999&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
• Sample size – 1,407 sex offenders
• Length of time – 6.3 years.
• Re-offense trigger – new arrest.
• Results – 9% arrested for new sex crime.

* New York - 2007 http://dpca.state.ny.us/pdfs/somgmtbulleti 2.1 percent recidivism rate for a repeat sex offense.

* Wyoming - (2005 - Page 2) http://legisweb.state.wy.us/PubResearch/2005/05RM078r.pdf
Wyoming, Department of Corrections, 2005
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/PubResearch/2005/05RM078r.pdf
• Length of study – unknown
• Sample size – unknown
• Re-offense trigger – unknown
• Results: 4% to 5%.

[TeeDub]

Yes, we have both proven that sex offenders do in fact often re-offend.

So why is it you want to give them a free pass again?

Don't you think that someone who commits a heinous crime should be punished for that crime?

[MSLGWCEO]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Yes, we have both proven that sex offenders do in fact often re-offend.

So why is it you want to give them a free pass again?

Don't you think that someone who commits a heinous crime should be punished for that crime?

No, you have NOT proved anything. To the contrary. FIRST time offenders have a VERY LOW recidivist rate. ALL reliable studies show that.

I have never said, they should not be punished. But I have said, Once a person fulfills their contract with the court. Prison/parole/probation, additional punishment by the "thought police" are unconstitutional and unproductive.

The vast majority who commit an act upon a child are family members and those known by the family. THEY are the ones I'm concerned about because once caught, they don't repeat another sex crime.

The repeat offender, those who did not know their victim and the violent rapist I personally don't care if they are locked up for the rest of their life.

Incest is NOT pedophilia and the sex offender behind evwery bush is a myth.

Again, the documentary, and blogtalkradio interview with Edward Blackhoff referencing the 12 prestigious award documentary can go a long ways to PREVENTION THROUGH EDUCATION and it must start at the community level.

Listen to it here.
http://cfcoklahoma.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:incest-a-family-tragedy&catid=38:news-articles&Itemid=80

 Randy Lopp,  "treatment subcommittee chairman of the Oklahoma Sex Offender Management Team says,''Most people who know anything about this are frustrated. It is just not helpful -- the laws as they are now,''

''I think if the general public understood the research, they would be willing to back the legislators to change the laws to make more sense and to protect children, because the laws as they are written are not protecting children," he said. "They are doing more harm than good.''

Jim Rabon, who oversees sex offender registration for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections said, "the committee that set up the levels reviewed cases of people beginning prison and probation between July 2006 and June 2007 and determined that most sex offenders fall into the highest risk category.

The review revealed that 78 percent of the sex offenders fall in Level Three, 3 percent in Level Two and 19 percent in Level One."

Based on those numbers, Tulsa Police Sgt. Gary Stansill, who has spent more than 20 years investigating sex crimes in Tulsa, said he believes that the Oklahoma law is too broad.

Under the law, he said, an 18-year-old who is convicted of statutory rape for having sex with a 15-year-old and someone who is convicted of groping an officer during an undercover sting would both be registered sex offenders for life.

''The least number of people should be in the worst tier, but the most number of people are going to be in the worst tier under the new law,'' Stansill said.
http://cfcoklahoma.org/index.php...

[cannon_fodder]

Could someone summarize the general arguments in here for me, I don't want to read all that just to find out I'm not interested.

[MSLGWCEO]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


How about a 10 year study done by the state of Ohio?

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf

The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%.

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

This TOTAL INCLUDED TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS. i.e. parole violations, etc.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Could someone summarize the general arguments in here for me, I don't want to read all that just to find out I'm not interested.

Is prison a cure for sex deviants or not.

[MSLGWCEO]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Could someone summarize the general arguments in here for me, I don't want to read all that just to find out I'm not interested.

To sum it up. It has to do with law makers passing laws without conferring with the experts in a particular area. They have relied on myths, lies and hysteria when passing these "knee jerk" laws, which in effect actually endanger the very ones that the laws were designed to protect. See also: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/73257