Proof Offender laws are not protecting children

[_EAllusion]

"Dangerous predator" doesn't just mean likely to reofffend. It also means likely to do something dangerous. I don't care if someone was caught urinating in public 4 times; they're not a dangerous predator. By context, DT clearly means people who pose serious risks to society. Since the study you cited tried its best to focus on those people specifically, it would be odd to challenge whether we can know prior which ones fall in that category.

Regarding recidivism rates of sex offenders, I do not recall claiming that this is not something we can know. Obviously we can't know on an individual level as prediction isn't that good. Sex offender recidivism rates tend to be low and far lower than the public's perception of them. There's a famous Supreme Court opinion defending sex offender registries from Constitutional challenge that relies on a false claim in a psych today article about high recidivism rates that no one can figure out where it came from (because it probably came from the imagination of the author.)

[_Res Ipsa]

"Dangerous predator" doesn't just mean likely to reofffend. It also means likely to do something dangerous. I don't care if someone was caught urinating in public 4 times; they're not a dangerous predator. By context, DoubtingThomas clearly means people who pose serious risks to society. Since the study you cited tried its best to focus on those people specifically, it would be odd to challenge whether we can know prior which ones fall in that category.

Your whole argument that there is something "odd" is based on you attributing intent or thought processes to the author of the study that don't appear in the paper. There is nothing in the paper that indicates the author tried to do her best to focus on high risk offenders. In fact, she tells us right in the paper what she was thinking when she designed the study. She describes Minnesota as a "model" for community notification practices. After describing the "aggressive" notification procedures used by law enforcement in Minneapolis, she says:

According to risk communication theory, when authorities need to communicate risk of a potential threat (natural- or human-made disaster) to induce the public to take protective actions, the best results come from communication that is given (a) in the written form, (b) repeatedly, and (c) by a multitude of authoritative groups (Mileti, Fitzpatrick, and Farhar, 1992). As such, it is reasonable to expect that if community notification were to prompt the undertaking of protective behaviors, then this effect would be observed most readily in a locale such as Minneapolis. For these reasons, Minneapolis was selected as the research site for this project.

There is literally nothing in the description of the study design that indicates the author was trying at all to focus on high-risk offenders. Nowhere does she place any importance on the distinctions between Level 3 offenders and Level 1 and 2 offenders. Rather, she placed importance on the aggressive nature of the notification procedures -- not the substance of offenses. While she states that those procedures are implemented only for level 3 offenders, she places no importance on that fact other than to warn that the results of the study cannot be necessarily extrapolated to lower risk offenders. Nowhere in the study does she state or imply that she was attempting to focus on level 3 offenders or that she made any attempt to confine the study to level 3 sex offenders. She chose a community based on the nature of the notification process, and it happened that those procedures were only applied to level 3 offenders.

Similarly, you said of the paper upthread:

I noted that the study you cited made distinctions between types of sex offenders to distinguish relative risk....

There is nothing in the paper that that says the author did any such thing.

What you keep conflating are two separate questions:

1. Does telling people that a dangerous sex offender lives in their neighborhood cause them to engage in protective behavior?

2. How accurately can we identify dangerous sex offenders?

There would be nothing odd or inconsistent about answering "yes" to the first question and "not very" to the second. (Note that I didn't do the latter, I merely asked for evidence.) Your insinuation otherwise is just a red herring that avoids the substantive issues addressed in the study. It also avoids the substance of my argument in response to DT: that the study he cited is not proof that sex offender laws aren't protecting children.

Now, what I think would be odd would be to answer question 1 yes, question 2 no, and then claim that we should maintain sex offender registries for "dangerous predators." But the oddness, in my opinion, would be the notion that the police should give people false information for the purpose of inducing protective behavior. But I think the oddness flows from ethical considerations rather than any inconsistency in the answers to the two questions. But, again, I haven't argued any of that. I just asked DT for some evidence.

Bottom line: The study that I cited is irrelevant to DT's statement that he would confine registries to "dangerous predators" or my question in response. Your conflation of the two to claim that it's "odd" for me to rely on the study is a red herring.

As to whether "dangerous predators" includes the term "dangerous," I kind of thought that was obvious. If you're simply making a general point that aggregate recidivism rates don't tell the whole story unless they distinguish between "dangerous" offenses and "not dangerous offenses," then I agree. But that also doesn't mean that aggregate recidivism rates never tell us anything. It depends on the question being asked. For example, if sex offenders on registries were less likely to have access to housing and employment, and that access resulted in higher rates of recidivism, I think it would be reasonable to expect that aggregate rates for recidivism for those listed on registries would be higher than for those not listed on registries.

Regarding recidivism rates of sex offenders, I do not recall claiming that this is not something we can know. Obviously we can't know on an individual level as prediction isn't that good. Sex offender recidivism rates tend to be low and far lower than the public's perception of it. There's a famous Supreme Court case defending sex offender registries from Constitutional challenge that relies on a false claim in a psych today article about high recidivism rates that no one can figure out where it came from (because it probably came from the imagination of the author.)

Your second sentence is what I recall you saying before. If our ability to predict, on an individual level, which person convicted of a "dangerous" sex offense is likely to commit a "dangerous" sex offense in the future is "not very good," then that undercuts the entire rationale for sex offender registries on an ethical basis, as I stated above.

[_Res Ipsa]

With respect to number 3, do you have any data supporting the notion that people on sex offender registries reoffend at higher rates than those that are not?

"Several studies suggest that making it harder for sex offenders to find a home or a job makes them more likely to reoffend. Gwenda Willis and Randolph Grace of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, for example, found that the lack of a place to live was “significantly related to sexual recidivism”. Candace Kruttschnitt and Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota and Kelly Shelton of the Minnesota Department of Corrections tracked 556 sex offenders on probation and found less recidivism among those with a history of stable employment."

Georgia Harlem, “Unjust and Ineffective,” Economist, August 8, 2009

OK, going through the literature, I found three general kinds of studies. There are studies that indicate that inability to find a place to live or hold a steady job results in higher recidivism rates. There are studies that report on the effects of stigmatizing sex offenders, including losing a job or housing. When you put these studies together, it seems reasonable to conclude that being listed on a sex offender registry should cause a higher rate of recidivism.

But when we look at studies that compare recidivism rates before and after adoption of notification laws in states, we don't find that. In general, those studies find no statistically significant change. See, e.g.,

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 010.505577 (Arkansas)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/abstractdb/Ab ... ?id=202847 (Iowa)
https://www.csaprimaryprevention.org/fi ... is_of_.pdf (New York)
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 3409353148 (South Carolina)

In a couple hours of looking, I was not able to find any research that examined why, given the results of the first two types of study, the third type found no statistically significant correlation between registries and notification. I suppose it's possible that the negative effects on housing and employment are caused by factors other than being on a registry. Perhaps they are caused by potential landlords and employers asking about criminal convictions in applications or performing criminal background check. All I know is when studies looked at the connection between public notification and recidivism, they didn't find any statistically significant correlation. If you found any studies to the contrary, please let me know.

[_Res Ipsa]

With respect to number one, what is your evidence that we can predict which offenders will repeat the crime after serving their sentences with an acceptable rate of accuracy?

[snip]

To better answer your questions please give me more time, I need to review the research literature. I am mostly doing a quick reply because I am busy doing something else. But here is a paper published in the respected American Journal of Public Health that concludes:

In fact, evidence on the effectiveness of these laws suggests that they may not prevent recidivism or sexual violence and result in more harm than good...For example, Barnowski, in his study examining the relationship between risk levels and recidivism among registered sex offenders in Washington, concluded that “[t]he notification levels determined by the [End of Sentence Review Committee] do not classify sex offenders into groups that accurately reflect their risk for reoffending.

Bonnar-Kidd, Kelly K. "Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or recidivism." American Journal of Public Health 100.3 (2010): 412-419.

Yes, that's what Barnowski's report said. http://www.wsipp.Washington.gov/ReportFile/920/ ... divism.pdf How do we confine registries to "dangerous predators" if we can't accurately predict which offenders are more likely to commit "dangerous" offenses in the future?

by the way, Barnowski also did a study around the same time examining the effect of community notification on sex offender recidivism. He found there was a statistically significant decrease in both violent felony recidivism and sex felony recidivism among convicted sex offenders following passage of notification laws. http://www.wsipp.Washington.gov/ReportFile/919/ ... cation.pdf He correctly notes that this shows correlation and doesn't prove causation, he also correctly notes that community notification cannot be ruled out as a cause of the decrease.

[_EAllusion]

There is nothing in the paper that that says the author did any such thing.

What you keep conflating are two separate questions:

1. Does telling people that a dangerous sex offender lives in their neighborhood cause them to engage in protective behavior?

2. How accurately can we identify dangerous sex offenders?

There would be nothing odd or inconsistent about answering "yes" to the first question and "not very" to the second. (Note that I didn't do the latter, I merely asked for evidence.) Your insinuation otherwise is just a red herring that avoids the substantive issues addressed in the study. It also avoids the substance of my argument in response to DT: that the study he cited is not proof that sex offender laws aren't protecting children.

Now, what I think would be odd would be to answer question 1 yes, question 2 no, and then claim that we should maintain sex offender registries for "dangerous predators." But the oddness, in my opinion, would be the notion that the police should give people false information for the purpose of inducing protective behavior. But I think the oddness flows from ethical considerations rather than any inconsistency in the answers to the two questions. But, again, I haven't argued any of that. I just asked DT for some evidence.

Bottom line: The study that I cited is irrelevant to DT's statement that he would confine registries to "dangerous predators" or my question in response. Your conflation of the two to claim that it's "odd" for me to rely on the study is a red herring.

As to whether "dangerous predators" includes the term "dangerous," I kind of thought that was obvious. If you're simply making a general point that aggregate recidivism rates don't tell the whole story unless they distinguish between "dangerous" offenses and "not dangerous offenses," then I agree. But that also doesn't mean that aggregate recidivism rates never tell us anything. It depends on the question being asked. For example, if sex offenders on registries were less likely to have access to housing and employment, and that access resulted in higher rates of recidivism, I think it would be reasonable to expect that aggregate rates for recidivism for those listed on registries would be higher than for those not listed on registries.

Regarding recidivism rates of sex offenders, I do not recall claiming that this is not something we can know. Obviously we can't know on an individual level as prediction isn't that good. Sex offender recidivism rates tend to be low and far lower than the public's perception of it. There's a famous Supreme Court case defending sex offender registries from Constitutional challenge that relies on a false claim in a psych today article about high recidivism rates that no one can figure out where it came from (because it probably came from the imagination of the author.)

Your second sentence is what I recall you saying before. If our ability to predict, on an individual level, which person convicted of a "dangerous" sex offense is likely to commit a "dangerous" sex offense in the future is "not very good," then that undercuts the entire rationale for sex offender registries on an ethical basis, as I stated above.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is occurring here. DT made an argument that sex offender lists are bad because they divert resources away from focusing on dangerous predators. Your retort to that argument, referencing it by number, is that he needs to provide evidence about which offenders will repeat their crimes once back in society. But that doesn't follow because "dangerous predator" doesn't reduce into "likely to reoffend." The bigger part of that equation, referred to explicitly in other posts of his, is in the types of crimes that receive sex offender status. Once this is cleared away and we understand that we can classify sex offenses into high-risk categories, your objection to what DT is arguing fades.

Given that you cited a study that relies on one such classification system implies you either trust the studies findings or you don't. The high-risk category isn't irrelevant to its conclusions. It very well might be the case that lower-risk cohorts don't produce the same effect they measured. If people are told a "sex offender" lives in their neighborhood, but there is widespread understanding that term encapsulates everything from serial rape to nuisance crimes, maybe their propensity for protective behaviors would differ. The fact that the notification system focus on what it classifies as more dangerous offenders is relevant. Recognizing this, the authors only generalize to the category of sex offender noted. They frankly discuss the data set where offenders are broken down by relative risk. It might not matter to you if offender notifications are true, but it actually does matter insofar as they are trying to measure real-world impacts of notification systems wherein the truth of those notifications is potentially a consequential variable.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is occurring here.

I'm pretty sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure I see several points of disconnection. Let's try going one step at a time instead of in chunks.

DoubtingThomas made an argument that sex offender lists are bad because they divert resources away from focusing on dangerous predators.

So far, so good.

Your retort to that argument, referencing it by number, is that he needs to provide evidence about which offenders will repeat their crimes once back in society.

The first point of disconnect is your description of my question as a "retort." It wasn't. It was a request to see if he had evidence. I made it because I remembered our prior conversation in which you described our ability to predict whether an offender will reoffend as not good. If DT had looked up studies on that issue, it would at least give me a head start on tracking down information on that topic.

But that doesn't follow because "dangerous predator" doesn't reduce into "likely to reoffend."

The second point of disconnect is your treatment of my question to DT as an argument. Unless you are taking the position that our ability to predict whether a sex offender will offend again is completely irrelevant when trying to determine whether an offender is a "dangerous predator" on whom law enforcement should focus prevention efforts, then my question was on a relevant topic. I never claimed that my question "followed" from anything because it was a question, not an argument. Likewise, your claim that my question "reduced" "dangerous predator" into "likely to reoffend" is based solely on your erroneous treatment of a question I asked DT as an argument.

I didn't ask DT for evidence that some sex offenses qualify as dangerous (e.g., violent rape) while others do not (peeing in public) because I didn't need to. While we might quibble over where exactly to draw the line between dangerous and not dangerous, I didn't feel a need to consult peer reviewed studies on that issue. So, what you erroneously interpreted as illogical, reductive argument was simply a request for information on the portion of the relevant information that I didn't feel comfortable drawing conclusions on.

The bigger part of that equation, referred to explicitly in other posts of his, is in the types of crimes that receive sex offender status.

This is simply a continuation of the second point of disconnect. You are responding to me as if, instead of asking a question for evidence, I was attempting to describe a complete equation. I wasn't. I was asking for information on the part of the equation that I didn't feel I had sufficient information to evaluate.

I do think that it would be useful to clarify the term "dangerous predator." I would say that it has two components: (1) likelihood of committing another sex crime; and (2) the seriousness of the future crime. In other words, an offender who has a 100% chance of public peeing in the future would not be "dangerous." A rapist who has a 0% chance of reoffending would not be a "predator." Would you agree?

Once this is cleared away and we understand that we can classify sex offenses into high-risk categories, your objection to what DoubtingThomas is arguing fades.

I hope what we've cleared away is your erroneous interpretation of my question. So far, what you've done is constructed a counterargument to something that wasn't an argument.

I don't understand what you mean by "classify sex offenses into high risk categories." The literature I've reviewed tries to classify offenders as high risk. The nature of prior offenses is part of that evaluation, but not by any means the sole component. Would you please elaborate?

I've read a little more today about our ability to predict whether an offender will commit a dangerous sex crime in the future, but I'm not satisfied that I have a good handle on it yet. I was surprised to read the study from 2006 that concluded that Washington's levels system had almost zero predictive value. If that is correct and if the system used to determine levels is still the same today, then I would argue against DT's position by saying the we should abandon offender registries entirely. If our system here in Washington at sorting offenders into risk levels is little better than rolling a three-sided die, then we have no business labeling any offender as a "dangerous predator." And that is the potential objection I had to DT's statement number one. I'm not sure what, exactly, you thought my "objection" was.

Given that you cited a study that relies on one such classification system implies you either trust the studies findings or you don't.

The third point of disconnect is your attempt to tie the validity of the study to the accuracy of the Level 3 classification

The study in no way "relies" on the accuracy of the Level 3 classification for its findings. The study simply examines how the providing of certain information in a certain way affects behavior. The effect is not dependent on the accuracy of the information -- only on the the information itself and how it is presented. If it turns out that the Level 3 classification is highly predictive, that would not change the results of the study. If it turns out that the Level 3 classification has zero predictive ability, that would not change the result of the study. If all you change is the actual (not the perceived) predictive power of the Levels assessment, it is still true that providing the information that law enforcement provided to the neighbors in the manner that they provided resulted in a statistically significant increase in protective measures taken by parents on behalf of their children.

The high-risk category isn't irrelevant to its conclusions. It very well might be the case that lower-risk cohorts don't produce the same effect they measured. If people are told a "sex offender" lives in their neighborhood, but there is widespread understanding that term encapsulates everything from serial rape to nuisance crimes, maybe their propensity for protective behaviors would differ.

The fourth point of disconnect is your conflation of the validity of the study's findings with the extent to which they can be generalized to other situations. As is true of all studies, changing the variables can change the result. That fact doesn't change the validity of the study. If I do a study of high blood pressure on men, the fact that the results might change if I did the same study on women doesn't change the validity of my study on men. All you are saying is that the results might be different if we did a different study. But that doesn't affect the validity of this study.

The fact that the notification system focus on what it classifies as more dangerous offenders is relevant. Recognizing this, the authors only generalize to the category of sex offender noted. They frankly discuss the data set where offenders are broken down by relative risk. It might not matter to you if offender notifications are true, but it actually does matter insofar as they are trying to measure real-world impacts of notification systems wherein the truth of those notifications is potentially a consequential variable.

[/quote]

The fifth point of disconnect is your conflation of relevant to the validity of the study with relevant to other factors

The issue is not whether the classification is relevant to something. The issue is whether it is relevant to the validity of the study. Yes, it's relevant to the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other situations, but that's not the same as the validity of the study. There was no discussion of the accuracy or reliability of the Level 3 classification. The data set was not broken down by the risk of reoffending. The entire data set was composed of Level 3 offenders because that's the only data there was. And, while the truth is "potentially" a consequential variable, it was not a variable at all in this study. The fact that the accuracy of the Level 3 classification may be relevant to what we do with the results of the study out in the real world, but that has nothing to do with the validity of the study itself.

That's five points of disconnect. TL/DR It is entirely reasonable for me to trust the findings of the study and at the same time question the predictive power of the Level 3 classification. That's because the predictive power is irrelevant to the study's findings, which are limited to the effect of certain information provided in a particular manner on the behavior of those who receive the information.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I was surprised to read the study from 2006 that concluded that Washington's levels system had almost zero predictive

It's shifting the burden of proof, we shouldn't have thousands offenders in the list for urinating, sexting, or other stupid things. Yes, we can predict who is going to re-offend, and it is the people without a stable job. The sex offender registry is creating sex offenders.

then I would argue against DoubtingThomas's position by saying the we should abandon offender registries entirely.

I don't know if we should abandon offender registries entirely, but we need to reform them. Imagine burglars in your house, but the nearest police officers are busy arresting a sex offender for failing to update his address. How would you feel about that? According to the economist, "The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries"

"Georgia's sheriffs complain that they have been given no extra money or manpower to help them keep the huge and swelling sex-offenders' registry up to date or to police its confusing mass of rules. Terry Norris of the Georgia Sheriffs' Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married. “It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make him a threat to anybody,” says Mr Norris. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who's done something heinous.”"

It is so sad and pathetic that pornography is probably more effective in reducing child rape than our sex offender registry. According to a study published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal (Archives of Sexual Behavior) the data "showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse" after pornography was legalized in Denmark, Japan, and Czech Republic. Of course pornography should never be legalized here in the US and the producers of pornography should be severely punished!. We can't legalize an evil to reduce another evil.

Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E. and Weiss, P., 2011. Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of sexual behavior, 40(5), pp.1037-1043.

But my point is that we see no studies saying "showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child abuse" because of the sex offender registry. To me it is just outrageous that the government isn't doing anything to significantly decrease child abuse. Not only is the government not doing anything that works, the government is also keeping our police officers busy wasting their time with non-violent offenders.

[_DoubtingThomas]

If you found any studies to the contrary, please let me know.

I will. I am busy at this moment so it will probably have to be on Thursday or Friday. You should read The War on Sex Book. A University book (essays) by academics.

[_Res Ipsa]

I was surprised to read the study from 2006 that concluded that Washington's levels system had almost zero predictive

It's shifting the burden of proof, we shouldn't have thousands offenders in the list for urinating, sexting, or other stupid things.

What's shifting which burden of proof? Absent persuasive evidence that public urination or teenage sexting are reliable leading indicators of future commission of serious sex crimes, people committing those crimes shouldn't be on any registry. I haven't seen any such evidence, so I agree.

Yes, we can predict who is going to re-offend, and it is the people without a stable job. The sex offender registry is creating sex offenders.

That's both wrong and a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. There's quite a bit of literature on predicting which sex offenders will reoffend. However, a big problem with that -- there's substantial agreement in the literature that sex crimes are significantly underreported. We have statistics on people arrested and convicted of offenses and can look at how often they are arrested or convicted again. But it much harder to get at the characteristics of people who offend and then reoffend after imprisonment. To the extent law enforcement and the criminal justice system itself is uneven or biased, those biases will distort the statistics of who is arrested or convicted as opposed to who actually commits the crime. If, for example, poor people who commit sexual offenses are more likely to be arrested and convicted of a sex offense than middle class or upper class folks, that fact alone will affect the relationship between employment and arrest or conviction. Similarly, one of the predictors of reoffending among those convicted of a sex offense is having an anti-social personality. That factor, in and of itself, could result in unstable employment. So, figuring out how all these factors relate to each other and interact to result in a high rate of reoffense is much more complicated than identifying a single source.

Here's one meta study. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.g ... 2.0031.pdf You can find others. Note that this paper found only a single study that found employment stability to be a statistically significant predictor of reoffending. The paper also illustrates that the relevant factors differ depending on the nature of the reoffense. Most people who reoffend after a sex offense do so with a non-violent, non-sex offense.

There is evidence in the literature that having a plan that includes both employment and living arrangements contributes to lesser rates of reoffense. You cited one such study upthread. So I am all for taking steps to help offenders reintegrate into society after imprisonment. But, at the time of release, no one can predict what a specific individual's employment experience will be. Therefore, future employment cannot be used to decide which offenders being released from prison qualify as "dangerous predators."

With respect to the registries creating sex offenders, I believe I already addressed that. The many studies of reoffense rates before and after the institution of registries does not show any statistically significant increase in the rate of reoffending.

then I would argue against DoubtingThomas's position by saying the we should abandon offender registries entirely.

I don't know if we should abandon offender registries entirely, but we need to reform them. Imagine burglars in your house, but the nearest police officers are busy arresting a sex offender for failing to update his address. How would you feel about that? According to the economist, "The police complain that having so many petty sex offenders on registries makes it hard to keep track of the truly dangerous ones. Cash that might be spent on treating sex offenders—which sometimes works—is spent on huge indiscriminate registries"

I can imagine all kinds of things. Of all 911 calls that report burglars in the house, what percentage have a delayed response because the police are busy arresting a sex offender for failure to update an address? Do you have any data on this?

Georgia's sheriffs complain that they have been given no extra money or manpower to help them keep the huge and swelling sex-offenders' registry up to date or to police its confusing mass of rules. Terry Norris of the Georgia Sheriffs' Association cites a man who was convicted of statutory rape two decades ago for having consensual sex with his high-school sweetheart, to whom he is now married. “It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make him a threat to anybody,” says Mr Norris. “We spend the same amount of time on that guy as on someone who's done something heinous.”"

The Economist is a respected publication, but does it cite any data for this? My own experience is that police departments never have the resources they believe they need to do the jobs we give them. And, as we skeptics are fond of saying, the plural of anecdotes is not data. Have you reviewed any studies of law enforcement attitudes toward registries. Likewise, a case from 20 years ago is only a single data point. Have you reviewed any studies that looked at whether sex offender registries are used by police to investigate sex crimes? Or the actual percentage of time spent updating registries and arresting folks for failing to register?

It is so sad and pathetic that pornography is probably more effective in reducing child rape than our sex offender registry. According to a study published in a highly respected peer-reviewed journal (Archives of Sexual Behavior) the data "showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse" after pornography was legalized in Denmark, Japan, and Czech Republic. Of course pornography should never be legalized here in the US and the producers of pornography should be severely punished!. We can't legalize an evil to reduce another evil.

Diamond, M., Jozifkova, E. and Weiss, P., 2011. Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of sexual behavior, 40(5), pp.1037-1043.

The problem with that study is that it simply showed correlations without exploring other possible causes of the decline. It also looked at aggregate measures of sex offenses without considering that exposure to pornograpy can have different effect on different individuals. At any rate, I don't see anyone suggesting that legalizing kiddie porn would be an acceptable way to reduce sex offenses.

But my point is that we see no studies saying "showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child abuse" because of the sex offender registry. To me it is just outrageous that the government isn't doing anything to significantly decrease child abuse. Not only is the government not doing anything that works, the government is also keeping our police officers busy wasting their time with non-violent offenders.

First, the problem is that we can't directly measure the "incidence of child abuse." We can only measure how many people are arrested or prosecuted. For example, suppose that the existence of sex offender registries resulted in people becoming more aware of the problem and reporting the abuse that occurs at greater rates. That increased rate of reporting could offset a decline in the rate of the incidence of child abuse. Or that, because law enforcement has access to the registers, they were able to locate and arrest repeat offenders at a higher rate. Again, this increased efficiency could offset any decline in the incidence of child abuse. I looked for, but could not find any studies that looked at those kinds of potential effects. (Not that my research skills are perfect....)

Second, as I already said, the broad statement that the government is not doing anything that works is just nonsense. The government has designated child sexual abuse as a crime. It prosecute the crime and removes child abusers from circulation for a substantial amount of time. At least some states provide treatment during incarceration, which appears to have an effect on the rate of reoffending. Some help inmates prepare re-entry plans for their lives after release. At least in my state, offenders who are released are subject to supervision by Community Correction Officers who monitor compliance with release conditions. State and local government organizations provide information on sexual abuse and suggested protective measures people can take. Government has passed mandatory reporter laws, under which people are required by law to report evidence of child abuse. Take away all of that and tell me what effect you think it would have on the incidence of child abuse?

But, the fact of the matter is, around 90% of people arrested for sex crimes are being arrested for the first time. And of those folks, 90% are committed by family members What, exactly, do you propose the government do to substantially reduce that? Government has constitutional limits on what it can do before someone commits a crime. And it is not in a position to intervene before abuse occurs.

[_Res Ipsa]

If you found any studies to the contrary, please let me know.

I will. I am busy at this moment so it will probably have to be on Thursday or Friday. You should read The War on Sex Book. A University book (essays) by academics.

I'm really not interested in the book. It has a clear editorial bias, which is fine. But I'm afraid that reading it would give me a very one-sided view of the issues. I prefer to look at the studies themselves rather than have someone tell me what they mean.