|
|
Forum: In the News
Thread (Discussion): [Hartford Courant] State's sex offender law reviewed
Message 159589
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Aug 23, 2005 10:45 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss the article State's sex offender law reviewed, by Tracy Gordon Fox, which appeared on Hartford Courant on August 23, 2005.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 159590 (In Reply to Message 159589)
Posted by steve
on Aug 24, 2005 02:47 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
More manpower would be required to track offenders, particularly for the probation department, which now has a ratio of 45 offenders to one probation officer. Amann said he is hoping to reduce that ratio to 25-to-1.
dp1 (and other POs), how many offenders do you manage? Do you know the average in your state and other states? What's a manageable ratio?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159589)
Message 159597 (In Reply to Message 159590)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 24, 2005 03:50 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Sex offender officers are funded at 40 - 1. I usually run anywhere between 43 and 47 depending on my mood (lol)
Having 40 sex offender cases nowadays is entirely too much for the average PO IMO. With all the new rules, ordinances, laws, GPS and other restrictions coupled with the pressure from the media and the public and not to mention zero tolerance for violations it simply isn't a job that can be done with any accuracy in 40 hours a week. I believe sex offenders do well with close supervision. It's in our best interest to watch them as closely as possible. I'd cap the caseload at 35 if it was up to me.
DTCDTT is a house arrest officer. Her cap is 25. House arrest is the closest form of supervision. With more GPS cases down the road I suspect she'll start feeling the heat as well. I know when I did house arrest 25 wasn't bad, but that was before they had GPS.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159590)
Message 159603 (In Reply to Message 159597)
Posted by artie
on Aug 24, 2005 05:05 AM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
40 - 47 is WAY too many. It is humanly impossible to connect with so many people the way that Megan's intended. ML stated that supervising officers would have a light load with the intent of spending quality supervisory time. What happened since it left the Gov's siggy?
45 is a way heavy load dp1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159597)
Message 159698 (In Reply to Message 159603)
DP1 - Question
Posted by Silverthorne
on Aug 25, 2005 08:01 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
DP1 - How many of these 40-45 offenders that you supervise would you consider "dangerous predators" who could reoffend at any minute and how many are people who you (personally) consider made a mistake but probably wouldn't do it again?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159603)
Message 159721 (In Reply to Message 159698)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 25, 2005 04:11 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
DP1 - How many of these 40-45 offenders that you supervise would you consider "dangerous predators" who could re-offend at any minute and how many are people who you (personally) consider made a mistake but probably wouldn't do it again?
That’s a tough one to answer. You know my views on risk assessments. It’s virtually impossible to know who the really dangerous offenders are. Of course I look at their mental health issues, prior records and circumstances of the crimes. Their stability weighs heavily with me as well as their ability to prioritize “what’s important”. For example, if a pedophile doesn’t think attending sex offender therapy is important I quickly help organize his priorities and get him off the street ASAP. I don’t sit around worrying that he might re-offend. Having a good sense of judgment and a proactive approach theoretically should net no re-offenses. As far as numbers go I’d say at least half of my cases are first time offenders with no prior record. As long as they are stable, going to therapy and are compliant I wouldn’t expect them to re-offend. RSOs like that get spot-checked so I can spend more time with the criminally minded RSOs and the pedophiles. With the criminally minded, I have to supervise them with a broader scope; more drug tests, curfew checks, rap sheet checks, DL checks, employment checks, etc. etc. because you never know really if they’ll get busted on a cocaine charge, domestic battery or a DUI. With the pedophiles I focus more on therapy issues, home visits and monitor his overall whereabouts while being mindful of playgrounds, daycares, girlfriends with kids, etc…Pedophiles are the best cases to have as far as compliance and attitude and the most difficult to catch before it’s too late. This is the problem. Because they appear to perfect cases POs sometimes tend to get too lax with them or focus on the wrong stuff. For example, it would be more important in my opinion to not waste time giving a pedophile a drug test every single month or running his DL, but instead focus on more field work and checking with his contacts to see if he’s developed relationships with children. Or instead of searching a computer on a first time offender I’d rather spend those 3 hours checking the pedophile’s computer.
Right now I have about 5 hard-core pedophiles that fight their demons on a daily basis. There’s no question they COULD re-offend at a moments notice if the conditions were just right. So far they are stable and doing well in therapy. I have one violent rapist on life parole that I worry about when he starts to date. When he dates he can expect to see me as often as his girlfriend. He attends group regularly and is doing well, but has a lot of anger. Anything’s possible I suppose. I monitor his drug and alcohol issues closely as well. Then I have a handful of RSOs who have long criminal records. It’s just a matter of time something will happen with them since they never got the hang of not breaking the law.
I didn’t mean to ramble or avoid answering your question. I really don’t have any concrete ideas on who WILL re-offend and who won’t. I prioritize as best as possible, adjust when necessary and weed out the bad boys. I have to treat everyone like they might re-offend and enforce their conditions as equally as possible, but you and I know their risks are not all equal. When working with offenders for a long period of time you’ll notice also that each person’s risk changes over time depending on the conditions IMHO.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159698)
Message 159723 (In Reply to Message 159603)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 25, 2005 04:16 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
45 is a way heavy load dp1
You got that right. I'd prefer a different type of management with these guys. I'd give the first time offenders to the less experienced officers, the criminally minded RSOs to the cop wannabe POs and the pedophiles (but fewer of them) with the most experienced. You can't treat a a pedophile like he had a momentary lapse in judgement, know what I mean? The balancing act between the different types of sex offenders is the hardest part.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159603)
Message 159759 (In Reply to Message 159721)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 25, 2005 10:00 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I thought I'd add a little side note here. Pursuant to the Jessica Lunsford Act effective Sept 1st the Department of Corrections is required to do risk assessments for sex offenders on supervision. It is now August 25th and I haven't a clue about how this will be accomplished if at all. I can hardly stand the wait to hear the details.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159721)
Message 159980 (In Reply to Message 159759)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 28, 2005 07:05 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
http://www.sexcriminals.com/forums/101/16791/159811.html
As explained in the above post, that isn't so. Risk assessment under the JLA applies to repeat offenders sentenced to probation after the effective date. makes no difference whatsoever to the ones currently on supervision.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159759)
Message 160028 (In Reply to Message 159589)
DP1 - Followup Question
Posted by Silverthorne
on Aug 29, 2005 06:31 AM | Also by Silverthorne
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Arizona,
Country: United States |
"As far as numbers go I’d say at least half of my cases are first time offenders with no prior record. As long as they are stable, going to therapy and are compliant I wouldn’t expect them to re-offend. RSOs like that get spot-checked so I can spend more time with the criminally minded RSOs and the pedophiles. "
Thats an interesting and honest answer thank you. Now don't you think as far as the fanatical registries go it would be better for law enforcment to spend their time focusing on the really dangerous folks (like Duncan was) rather then have to worry about ALL sex offenders like they do now?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159589)
Message 160044 (In Reply to Message 159723)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 29, 2005 01:22 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
and the pedophiles (but fewer of them) with the most experienced
First-time offenders are easy to determine. Just look at their non-existent rap sheet. Ditto the criminally-minded. Just look at theirs that runs off the edge of your desk, out onto the floor and out into the hall, evidence of Florida's revolving-door justice system.
But how do you determine that last group? Pedophiles? Only those with a valid clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, right?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (159723)
Message 160092 (In Reply to Message 160028)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 30, 2005 01:00 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Now don't you think as far as the fanatical registries go it would be better for law enforcment to spend their time focusing on the really dangerous folks
Sure. But how can LE possibly know which ones were dangerous? All they know is what's on the registry.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160028)
Message 160093 (In Reply to Message 160044)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 30, 2005 01:08 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
First-time offenders are easy to determine.
True. All you have to do is identify the pedophiles who got busted for the first time. The average first timer doesn't walk into the probation office from court on the first day with a large P tattoo on his forehead identifying him as a pedo. Nor do they admit to their only crime convicted for let alone all the other boys/girls he's molested over they years either.
But how do you determine that last group? Pedophiles? Only those with a valid clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, right?
It takes years sometimes to know what you are dealing with. Denial, deception and lies take a lot of work to break down. This is the toughest part but a hard core reality. Anyone that thinks a RSO can be assessed accurately immediately following his first conviction even before he finished treatment is living in a dream world and doesn't have a clue.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160044)
Message 160102 (In Reply to Message 160093)
Posted by artie
on Aug 30, 2005 03:00 AM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Denial, deception and lies take a lot of work to break down
What about the ones who are not lying? There are those, you know. Some people tell the truth the first time. Professionals are taught, though, that if they admit to that......then they must have done this.
Some people tell the truth
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160093)
Message 160103 (In Reply to Message 160092)
Posted by artie
on Aug 30, 2005 03:03 AM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
how can LE possibly know which ones were dangerous
And the inverse is to punish 'em all!
Nothing is perfect but experts have a good formula and indicators with which to measure. But nobody consulted them.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160092)
Message 160158 (In Reply to Message 160102)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 30, 2005 03:18 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Some people tell the truth.
Yes they do and all we have to do is separate out the liars. Polygraphs aren't effective, got any other bright ideas?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160102)
Message 160160 (In Reply to Message 160103)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 30, 2005 03:20 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Nothing is perfect but experts have a good formula and indicators with which to measure. But nobody consulted them.
Please do tell all Artie. Bring on the formula and tell us how acurate the predictions really are based on historical data.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160103)
Message 160221 (In Reply to Message 160158)
Posted by artie
on Aug 30, 2005 10:48 PM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
got any other bright ideas?
No...I don't
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160158)
Message 160232 (In Reply to Message 160160)
Posted by artie
on Aug 30, 2005 11:48 PM | Also by artie
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Please do tell all
You don’t need me for that. The best studies are at the college libraries. The original internet had these studies available for scholars. If you don’t like going to the legal and medical libraries, google +“sex offenders” +recidivism +indicators for some insight. But you have had training in DOC. You have been made aware of some of them. You did say earlier that you like to spend more time with those more likely to re-offend. Surely you are not just using your gut feeling. And if gut feeling is good enough for you, why isn’t it good enough for society?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160160)
Message 160235 (In Reply to Message 160232)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 31, 2005 12:12 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
My Dad always laughed at the weather forecast. He said there was always a 50% chance of rain. Either it will rain, or it won't.
This is where registries are today. Register EVERYBODY. Because either they'll reoffend. Or they won't. 50/50 chance of being right.
What Dad ignored was science and historical data, which is what the weather man used to adjust that 50/50 chance in one direction or the other. Risk assessment does the same thing. It takes empirical and actuarial data and skews that 50/50 chance higher or lower. Imperfect as it may be, it's better than flipping a coin.
Of course registry proponents say it is better to oppress the many offenders who don't and won't reoffend in an effort to keep the few who will from doing so. Not that it works.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160232)
Message 160253 (In Reply to Message 160232)
Posted by dp1
on Aug 31, 2005 02:25 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
The problem is that over the years I've seen too many risk assessments. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes they aren't. Talk about false sense of security.
If society wants to use their gut feeling when making judgements about sex offenders then so be it. So why don't we give them the information they need to make their own decisions like the details of their crimes and prior criminal record so they can make thier own decisions? Classifying offenders with a system that is not always accurate simply lays more layers of BS on top of an already imperfect system. Who needs more BS? I want less not more.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160232)
Message 160289 (In Reply to Message 160253)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 31, 2005 03:43 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
If society wants to use their gut feeling when making judgements about sex offenders then so be it.
True. But I believe a line has to be drawn determining who the public gets to use their "gut feeling" on.
Of course, if we were to just post all this information about everybody ever convicted of any crime, all of society could use their gut feeling to make judgements about all people.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160253)
Message 160290 (In Reply to Message 160289)
Posted by Navigatr1
on Aug 31, 2005 04:16 PM | Also by Navigatr1
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
orolan wrote:
Of course, if we were to just post all this information about everybody ever convicted of any crime, all of society could use their gut feeling to make judgements about all people.
I agree that we need to post the information about everyone convicted or arrested so that society can use their gut feeling about how dangerous they are. Of course, so will feel that this information is none of your business. At the same time these same people feel they should know just about sex offenders. Let me be the person who decides if it should be my business or not, which is why I advocate free national background checks for everyone in the USA. What is good for the goose is good for the gander as they say.
--Navigatr1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160289)
Message 160328 (In Reply to Message 160290)
Posted by orolan
on Aug 31, 2005 10:04 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Exactly. Let me, John Q. Public, decide if my neighbor's criminal past is important or not. The states say the registry is just "a way of making readily available information more convenient to access". So as a citizen, I want that same ready and convenient access. The state has a compelling interest to protect the public. And that's me. I pay taxes just like my neighbor.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (160290)
Thread
159589, admin, Aug 23, 2005 10:45 PM [Introduction]
159590, steve, Aug 24, 2005 02:47 AM
159597, dp1, Aug 24, 2005 03:50 AM
159603, artie, Aug 24, 2005 05:05 AM
159698, Silverthorne, Aug 25, 2005 08:01 AM [DP1 - Question]
159721, dp1, Aug 25, 2005 04:11 PM
159759, dp1, Aug 25, 2005 10:00 PM
159980, orolan, Aug 28, 2005 07:05 PM
159723, dp1, Aug 25, 2005 04:16 PM
160044, orolan, Aug 29, 2005 01:22 PM
160093, dp1, Aug 30, 2005 01:08 AM
160102, artie, Aug 30, 2005 03:00 AM
160158, dp1, Aug 30, 2005 03:18 PM
160221, artie, Aug 30, 2005 10:48 PM
160028, Silverthorne, Aug 29, 2005 06:31 AM [DP1 - Followup Question]
160092, dp1, Aug 30, 2005 01:00 AM
160103, artie, Aug 30, 2005 03:03 AM
160160, dp1, Aug 30, 2005 03:20 PM
160232, artie, Aug 30, 2005 11:48 PM
160235, orolan, Aug 31, 2005 12:12 AM
160253, dp1, Aug 31, 2005 02:25 AM
160289, orolan, Aug 31, 2005 03:43 PM
160290, Navigatr1, Aug 31, 2005 04:16 PM
160328, orolan, Aug 31, 2005 10:04 PM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
