# I Can't Believe You Raped A Pit Bull
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [June 21, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151 "2005-06-21T02:54:53Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 4
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/61 "2005-06-26T17:37:02Z")
> [@Excalibre](#):
>
> Sometimes when certain beliefs become widespread, and certain opinions become universal, I start to wonder if there’s some sort of propaganda or something like that pushing them. **wring** already cited what’s been well-illustrated elsewhere on these boards - not only are recidivism rates not shown to be high among sex offenders, but they’re actually lower than those of other crimes.
This seems to be true, but the “propaganda” likely relates to what are perceived as particularly heinous crimes (excuse me for sounding like the lead-in to L&O: Special Victims Unit). And for child molestors, the recidivism rate does appear to be discouragingly high. [This study](http://www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/199670_e.pdf) of child molestors released from prison found that 42% were reconvicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15-30 year followup period. The recidivism rate was a staggering **77%** for those convicted child molestors who selected male child victims outside the family and who had never been married. The “lowest risk” subgroup had a 20% recidivism rate.
From [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com): “One review of recidivism rates (p.7) found: “Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent. Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent. Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent. Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent. Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.”
Several studies and interviews of sex offenders support the claim that sex offender recidivism is highly underreported, with imprisoned perpetrators having many times more victims than the official criminal reports record.”
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/62 "2005-06-26T17:49:58Z")
can’t open file(pdf)- but the DoJ results are radically different, how do you reoncile? from what I recall from prior research, the studies claiming high results were of small samples and other methodological problems, then replicated by saying “some studies show up to” results when the actual truth was that most studies showed low results and one highly questionable one showed high results.
From my field experience, (except for true predators who have no empathic abilities), post treatment results show very low recidivism.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/63 "2005-06-26T17:54:33Z")
your “[sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com)” seems to be a corporation selling sex offender registry software. I’d buy the DoJ data.
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/64 "2005-06-26T18:16:33Z")
As to [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com), it actually [cites reviews of numerous studies](http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism_review.html), such as:
“In a more recent study (Rice, Quinsey, and Harris, 1991), extra-familial child molesters were followed for an average of six years. During that time, 31 percent had a reconviction for a second sexual offense. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were more likely to have been married, have a personality disorder, and have a more serious sex offense history than those who did not recidivate sexually. In addition, recidivists were more likely to have deviant phallometrically measured sexual preferences (Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995)”
You may wish to dispute individual studies or the summary of their results rather than dismissing them offhand for being listed on a site you disapprove of.
Must be grand to be a phallometric researcher. :rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/65 "2005-06-26T18:41:06Z")
I disagree. a cite selling such software has a built in reason to cite the data that shows a higher recidivism. but even that didnt’ support your prior one. like I said, when I see conclusions such as "studies show **up to** x percent, I worryabout bias - the DoJ studied some **nine thousand** folk.
(re: phallometric research - can you find anything if it’s peer recognized as valid?)
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/66 "2005-06-26T18:57:18Z")
> [@wring](#):
>
> I disagree. a cite selling such software has a built in reason to cite the data that shows a higher recidivism.
This attitude is similar to someone dismissing a study on media bias because it was listed on a “liberal” site. Sorry, but unless you have reason to believe these studies were invalid or their conclusions wrongly stated, it is improper to cavalierly dismiss them.
Please note that your Dept. of Justice study followed sex offenders for only 3 years, and found higher rates of recidivism for certain categories of sex offenders (i.e repeat child molestors).
Since you were unable to access the study linked to a pdf file (apparently all search engines were down simultaneously), here it is in [html form.](http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:90xFPjD0_qsJ:www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/199670_e.pdf+child+molestor+recidivism+RCMP&hl=en&start=2).
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/67 "2005-06-26T19:05:40Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> This attitude is similar to someone dismissing a study on media bias because it was listed on a “liberal” site…
no- these folks have a direct financial incentive in reporting mainly studies that show a higher rate,.
the DoJ results reflect what I recall from my past studies of the subject, as well as the data I see in my daily work.
I’ll look at the HTML site now.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/68 "2005-06-26T19:09:38Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> Since you were unable to access the study linked to a pdf file (apparently all search engines were down simultaneously), here it is in [html form.](http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:90xFPjD0_qsJ:www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/corrections/pdf/199670_e.pdf+child+molestor+recidivism+RCMP&hl=en&start=2).
meanwhile,what’s with the attitude here? I couldn’t access pdj on this computer, I’m supposed to then figure which cite you used? don’t think so.
yes, I noted the difference in different classes - once again, that reflects what I’ve understood about the subject, but even then it doesn’t show the much higher results your other thing does.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/69 "2005-06-26T19:15:11Z")
first of, the study says they looked at less than 200 people total. **then** broke 'em out into categories. and then had conclusions on that sub data. I suggest that 200 is a very, very small group to study in the first place, then to be making conclusions about the much smaller numbers as a result ?
especially since it contradicts data from other larger sources.
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/70 "2005-06-26T19:27:28Z")
In other words, no research except the Dept. of Justice study (with its short-term followup) is acceptable; every thing else that’s contradictory is either biased or invalid.
I think a more open mind is called for.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/71 "2005-06-26T19:35:31Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> In other words, no research except the Dept. of Justice study (with its short-term followup) is acceptable; every thing else that’s contradictory is either biased or invalid.
>
> I think a more open mind is called for.
'scuse me? a single study on a small number of folks and you’re not willing to admit some problem (especially since the study is cited by a cite promoting sex offender registry software)
I cited the DoJ study as being one of the largest available, noted that it also matched other results of which I’m familiar (don’t have the cites here on this computer, it’s on my work one), and noted that the data matched what I see in the field. (nearly 30 years, but also would be a smaller sample than the 9000 cited).
you also fail to answer “why the difference?” your study also showed radically different numbers for the shorter length of time of the study. so for 9000 we have a small percentage, for the less than 200 we have a much different number. wouldn’t the reasonable conclusion be that the larger study probably had a more representative sample than the smaller (for whatever reason)?
and I’m the one needing a more open mind?
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/72 "2005-06-26T19:52:30Z")
> [@wring](#):
>
> 'scuse me? a single study on a small number of folks and you’re not willing to admit some problem (especially since the study is cited by a cite promoting sex offender registry software)
Wrong, wrong, wrong, **wring**. That particular study was listed on a Canadian governmental website.
None of the other, multiple studies linked to were conducted by or for [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com), to my knowledge. They were mentioned on that particular website, which you think allows you to dismiss them out of hand.
If you can show us evidence of a general consensus in the field (including law enforcement perspectives) that the DoJ study with its 3-year followup has _conclusively_ settled the issue, that sex offenders (and particularly child molestors) reoffend in insignificantly small numbers and that therefore no special attention need be paid to the problem of recidivism in that population, fine. Otherwise it looks like you are placing undue significance on one particular study among many.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/73 "2005-06-26T20:09:38Z")
I didn’t claim the study was done by the cite, just that they posted it. I’m dismissive of that study because it places an undue significance based on what seems to me to be a very small sample. That’s a legitimate concern, one I’ve expressed already and ignored by you.
I’ve been dismissive of (generally) the data on that cite since they have an obvious reason to cherry pick the data. Odd don’t you think that they don’t include the large recently released DoJ data?
will you address the concenrs I’ve listed ? or at least drop the tone you’ve chosen?
and yes, I would indeed place greater significance on a large study that encompassed thousands of people over a large geographic area over much smaller more selective studies. why on earth shouldn’t I?
I could do a study of voting preferences on the people living in my brother’s neighborhood, covering a large amount of time. I’d suggest to you that conclusions based on that very small sample shouldn’t be considered to be stong evidence of ‘general voting preferences’ especially if it contradicted a much much larger national study.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/74 "2005-06-26T20:12:42Z")
another point that you’ve ignored. I’ve studied this subject and have reviewed lots ofstudies. I noted that the DoJ confirmed what I recalled from other studies. I also noted that I had the data about the other studies on my other computer, so I’m not asking that you review them presently- but to claim that I’m only looking at the DoJ study is wrong, wrong wrong.
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/75 "2005-06-26T20:29:13Z")
> [@wring](#):
>
> I didn’t claim the study was done by the cite, just that they posted it. I’m dismissive of that study because it places an undue significance based on what seems to me to be a very small sample.
Cripes, once it’s been pointed out to you that you made a mistake, don’t you think you should check it out?
The study you keep referring to (the one that shows a very high recidivism rate for a sub-category of child molestor) **was not referenced on [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com), but on _a Canadian governmental website_**. It is a research link that is part of [this site](http://www.psepc.gc.ca/), Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Are you now going to tell us that the Canadian government is biased against your view?
And obviously this is just one of numerous studies with results that differ from your prized DoJ study, available with a just a brief search.
I’ll await the consensus opinion suggested in my previous post. Till then, one may legitimately suspect that the problem is worse than you suggest.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/76 "2005-06-26T20:39:14Z")
**jack** - the [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com) also lists the Haris & Rice as sources.
gonna address the size of the study, lack of reference to much larger studies?
I won’t be able to get to the other data today, but at least you could acknow;edge ayour accusation of me relying on a single study is wrong (as well as your issue in this post)
---
### Author:  [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)
#### Post date: [June 26, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/77 "2005-06-26T23:36:24Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> Must be grand to be a phallometric researcher. :rolleyes:
The results of penile plethysmography are generally considered to be of pretty questionable value, especially when considering that they don’t in any way measure how likely one is to act upon whatever impulses they have. Plus, they can easily be thrown off by any number of other things; getting a hard-on when you’re nervous is not all that uncommon. At least according to things I’ve read, they’re considered to have about the validity of a lie detector test (incidentally, those aren’t considered valid for anything either.)
> [@wring](#):
>
> first of, the study says they looked at less than 200 people total. then broke 'em out into categories. and then had conclusions on that sub data. I suggest that 200 is a very, very small group to study in the first place, then to be making conclusions about the much smaller numbers as a result ?
> especially since it contradicts data from other larger sources.
Breaking them down into categories as fine as the study authors did guarantees that the results won’t be statistically valid - when your category is that fine, you’re looking at the behavior of a very few people and trying to extrapolate that onto the larger population.
To me, this increases my suspicions, because it’s a pretty common tactic: manipulate the results until they match what you were shooting for. And only considering the group that had the highest recidivism rate (whether it’s an artifact of their statistical shenanigans or not) is a pretty poor way to go about it.
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/78 "2005-06-27T02:00:25Z")
> [@Excalibre](#):
>
> Breaking them down into categories as fine as the study authors did guarantees that the results won’t be statistically valid - when your category is that fine, you’re looking at the behavior of a very few people and trying to extrapolate that onto the larger population.
And your basis for “guaranteeing” that the study is not statistically valid is what? Would you demonstrate your statistical analysis for us?
And while you’re at it, you can comment on the validity of a study that examines released sex offenders only during a three-year followup period (a period in which they would likely be under the greatest post-release supervision). There’s been dead silence from you and **wring** on this score.
And I am not impressed by **wring’s** protestations of innocence either. I linked to the article in question **twice** , in pdf and html formats, both times to the Canadian government website link, and the link was up before I ever linked to the [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com) website. So I am not buying that you skipped over the government website link and just happened to later dig out the same citation from [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com).
It reeks of a cheap tactic to discredit a conclusion you don’t like.
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2005, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/79 "2005-06-27T02:38:29Z")
A couple of additional items:
The information on [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com) that **wring** is trying so hard to dismiss is contained within a document issued by the Center for Sex Offender Management. Who is CSOM? Some commercial outfit that issues misinformation to help it make money? From the CSOM website:
“Center for Sex Offender Management is sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, in collaboration with the National Institute of Corrections, State Justice Institute, and the American Probation and Parole Association. CSOM is administered through a cooperative agreement between OJP and the Center for Effective Public Policy.”
So _CSOM is sponsored by the Dept. of Justice._ The same DoJ that **wring** thinks has the last word on sex offender recidivism. Maybe there _is_ something to the CSOM data after all.
I rechecked the CSOM document on [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com), and the child molestor data from Hanson that I cited (including the subgroup 77% recidivism rate) _does not appear there._ It _is_ listed on the Canadian government site. So **wring’s** attempts to link it with [sexoffender.com](http://sexoffender.com) either represent sudden convenient memory loss, or a deliberately deceitful ploy to discredit data she doesn’t like.
---
### Author:  [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)
#### Post date: [June 27, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151/80 "2005-06-27T04:30:24Z")
Every so often [meta-analysis](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9583338&query_hl=6) adds something of value.
> [@](#):
>
> Evidence from 61 follow-up studies was examined to identify the factors most strongly related to recidivism among sexual offenders. On average, the sexual offense recidivism rate was low (13.4%; n = 23,393). There were, however, subgroups of offenders who recidivated at high rates. Sexual offense recidivism was best predicted by measures of sexual deviancy (e.g., deviant sexual preferences, prior sexual offenses) and, to a lesser extent, by general criminological factors (e.g., age, total prior offenses). Those offenders who failed to complete treatment were at higher risk for reoffending than those who completed treatment.
So this kid seems to be at a high risk for recidivism; it don’t get much more deviant than that. His crime, preschoolers(!), particularly horrific. Him never being let out seems like a reasonable precaution to me. But that said, for other sexual offenders treatment seems to lower the risk. Barring the development and use of the precogs, how high of a risk for future additional crime is too high to allow release? (Zero is not an option since no one is zero risk) Does it matter what the sexual offense was?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151.md?page=3)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-cant-believe-you-raped-a-pit-bull/309151.md?page=5)