You’re being awfully argumentative here. I don’t see the point in talking with you anymore.
You jump in to “guarantee” that a cite is statistically inaccurate, then decline a request to back up your claims on the grounds that I’m being “argumentative”?
You may want to retire from the Pit and GD as well. I hear there are plenty of occasions in both forums where people are asked to provide evidence for unsupported arguments.
Absolutely. I don’t have time to give you a course in elementary statistics; if you can’t understand what I explained before, then I don’t really wish to take the time to elaborate.
:rolleyes: I don’t see the point in talking with people who are less interested in actual discussion of the issues than in attempts to “win” debate points. Congrats. I forfeit. You win. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
Good, it’s wonderful to have posters here whose arguments are magically not “argumentative”, who are solely out to inform without taking the trouble to explain their information, and are not the slightest bit interested in scoring debate points.
Let’s hear it for altruism. :rolleyes:
Look - you’re either too stupid to understand a very simple explanation about the statistical problems in that small study, or you’re pretending to be in order to create some false doubt around what wring and I said - there’s no other reason to ask for a citation for what I said. I saw a flaw in what was being argued, and I pointed it out. Either your understanding of statistics is so lacking that you can’t even make sense out of what I said, or you’re just being pointlessly argumentative. Whether your a moron or a liar, there’s obviously no point in having an argument with you.
You’ve certainly been obnoxiously argumentative, both with me and with others. That’s part of why I didn’t want to discuss it. You can stop trying to persuade me, because you’re just making it less likely. I understand - you can’t emotionally handle the fact that some people disagree with you, and it makes you obnoxious and combative, to the point that you’re arguing over whether some document was linked to from some website or not (how bloody irrelevant a point could you fuss about? If you wish to make an issue about that, you can’t possibly be interested in considering the actual, substantive matters in question.) Your personality defect is sad, but I feel no need to try to fix you.
I don’t argue with people who aren’t interested in the real questions. You want to swordfight over irrelevant minutia? Find someone else.
For someone who hates being argumentative, didn’t see the point in further communication, conceded defeat and said bye-bye to avoid the discomfort of having to defend a point, you’re awfully persistent.
I have had several articles published in scientific journals, and while I do not have an expansive knowledge of statistics, I do know that one cannot make flat “guarantees” of statistical insignificance without making the necessary calculations, and I don’t see how you could possibly have done so in this case. If you had simply said that the 9,000 inmate study may well have had greater statistical significance while seeing fit to address its short followup flaw, you would have demonstrated willingness to participate in an adult discussion. Instead, you’ve just shown yourself to be a hypersensitive jackass, who (in your own words) “can’t emotionally handle the fact that some people disagree with you”, and keep coming back to whine about it.
I do not appreciate dishonest dismissals of evidence, but that has nothing to do with you.
Thanks to DSeid for providing another piece of the puzzle.
So how about some stabs at answering the questions? What risk level is intolerable? For what kind of sexual offense?
You talkin’ to me?
I have not called for spitting and roasting this individual (the alleged dog abuse not withstanding) nor ever demanded blanket severe penalties for any category of sex offender.
Individual cases require individual evaluation. In general, I’d tend to assign the “intolerable risk” tag to high volume repeat offenders, like the alleged molestor in California with the diaries indicating hundreds of victims.
It seems ludicrous to place such people in the same statistical category as a one-time offender who may have some treatable issues.
And it bears pointing out again to the “what’s the big deal about an animal” crowd, that cruelty to animals is a big red flag indicating the sort of sociopathy that can result in dead people as well.
was the ‘dishonest dismissal of evidence’ directed at me? if so, I do object to that characterization- I gave cogent reasons to be less impressed (vs. dismissive) of data from sources that studied small numbers of people (which is what I’ve seen you posted) and less impressed of data related by a company who apparently only exists to provide the software for tracking sex offenders (which also consisted of small numbers of participants). Especially since it contradicts : 1. a very, very large study 2. much of what I’ve seen and studied through the years, since this is my field of expertise (offenders) and 3. My personal experience in the field. These are quite legitimate reasons to be less impressed with the studies you’ve cited. And for you to conclude, over and over, that I’m being dismissive for no rational reason is difficult to understand.
I planned on tracking down my sources today, but quite literally, the roof caved in at one of my work stations, and not only is the area not currently accessible, but we’ve been told to ‘assume nothing will be retrievable’. Needless to say, that’s been more of my focus today. but on another work station, I came up with this: (haven’t had a chance to recheck it for accesability since this is the slow ass computer that times out 2/3 of the time)
and after this, I need to go to do laundry. In any event didn’t want folks to think I was running away. Jack I know this is the pit and all, but I believe that I’ve been polite to you, don’t recall us having a “past”, in fact recall being glad that you re-upped. So I continue to be surprised at the tone you’ve displayed to me.
here’s the stuff I found late today (I believe some from a cite you note, Jack):
here from the Center for Sex Offender Management, a Project of the Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, we have several other links to important information., including a glossary of terms (that’s a PDF file)
One page, however will serve to provide some overview, Myths/facts Now I will point out one major disclaimer – this notes that the source of data is restricted to convicted molesters and notes that not all sex crime is reported, nor is it all solved. However, in the case of Child Sexual Abuse, the great majority of cases are committed by persons known to the family. (
the words in parentheses note the clinical study used to determine that fact. They also note that currently there has not been any study done that attempts to answer the question “how often are children molested but the crime is not reported”.
One listed “Myth” is that “Most sex offenders re-offend”. Their answer,
note that the source study for the conclusion is listed in the cite. Note, too, that the number of years tracked (5) is more than the DOJ numbers for general re-offending, and since 13% reoffense for sex crimes, and 37% overall rate over the course of 5 years is quite a bit less than the ‘average’ rate of re-offending for the criminal population at large. (though another study found the re offense rate to be 20%, still quite a bit lower). Further studies find substantial differences within the population of child molesters, as well.
Now, onto the treatment question. They list, again “Myth” :”Treatment for sex offenders is ineffective” their answer
I will note that it does admit that it is a ‘small’ difference. but it also states that the difference is ‘significant’.
Again, this information was generated as a tool to assist states and municipalities to deal effectively with the problem of sex offenders, through the United States Department of Justice.
In addition, looking closer at some of the studies cited by you, Jack it’s unclear to me what type of recidivism they’re talking about when they claim the larger numbers, what I saw in the CSOPs thing (and don’t burn me if I fucked up the name “CSOPs” since again this is the slow ass computer and I don’t want to wait 15 minutes while it loads up again - it’s somehting like that) - anyhow the larger amounts of recidivism seemed to be for other than sex crimes. While yes, we don’t want anyone to ever do anything criminal, it really does muddy up the waters when you include as a recidivism things like a bad check or whatnot with a new sex offense (if the issue is "are they curable, do they ‘always’ reoffend?)
In any event, with all these studies, I think we can safely say that it’s wrong to conclude that “They always reoffend” (or even “nearly always”) and again, lest anyone forget, I acknowledge that the best case scenario is that they never reoffend and that it’s a horrible crime etc etc etc.
.
See, wring, I’ve had no reason in the past to regard you as being extremely, incorrigibly moronic. So I look for other explanations as to why you would repeatedly mischaracterize data that I’ve referred to. Including in your last post. The “stuff that you found today”, for example, comes from the very same place as the “stuff” that I referred to on sexoffender.com, the Center for Sex Offender Management. That’s all that I linked to there, a summary report on sex offender recidivism by the CSOM. The data does not become invalid because it is reprinted elsewhere, unless you could show that sexoffender.com only excerpted the most sensational findings in order to sell product. On the contrary, it appears that they reprinted the report in its entirety, and it is pretty dry, sober, reasonable-sounding stuff.
The other study, which you acknowledged seeing, had nothing to do with sexoffender.com, but you continually referred to it as though it did.
I just don’t believe you are that totally clueless. So I suspect you got carried away on a subject you have a lot invested in.
I hope you are directing this elsewhere, as I have never said anything of the sort.
I suggest trying Ginkgo biloba for that memory problem. Can’t hurt, anyway.
I think you do need to acknowledge the tone you take at times, which can go beyond dismissive to hostile. Take the Schiavo controversy (where I agree with you, but sheesh, calm down a bit).
Yeah you buddy!
No. Really. Everyone. Sex crimes are a hot button. Certainty of non-recidivism is not possible and the risk seems to be higher than, say, murder. How much risk should we take?
You are beginning to remind me of Dr. Christian Szell in Marathon Man.
Is it SAFE?
Better book than movie.
It is never “safe.” There is always risk. What risks are worth what cost?
So the “average” sex offender does not have a 90% recidivism rate as was claimed by someone earlier in this thread, more like 13%. Is that too much of a risk or not?
For instance, if aggravated assaulters had a 99% recidivism rate and molestors only had a .05% recidivism rate, would we go all apeshit over those who are nearly certain to leave others in a bloody pulp on the ground? Or would there still be those who would parrot back “yeah, but we should have a 0% molestation rate! Any of it is too much”
For those of you who’ve said that, I say, I’d much rather be molested than beaten up to nearly the point of unconciousness, even though it’s likely the two crimes carry similar sentences. And there certainly isn’t the vitriolic swarm of the same intensity towards your average gentle thug as there is toward mr cop-a-feel, (although if you were to pit the description of the latter crime I chose from, I’m sure someone would walk in demanding several minutes with the offender.)
A 0% molestation rate would be ideal. So would a 0% murder rate and a 0% violence rate. Come to think of it, so would a 0% vehicular homicide rate: let’s ban cars! How far will we go until it becomes infeasible to prevent crime without unduly interfering with other parts of life?
So Lud, put you down as saying 13% recidivism is a tolerable level of risk balanced against the keeping of all molesters (including the 87% who would never molest again) in jail forever? How about for a child rapist?
I’d say it’s tolerable even for child rapists, because I don’t think it’s just to punish that 87% for what the 13% will do. I do think child rapists (I’m assuming you mean people who commit violent, physically coercive sexual assaults on children) should face very stiff penalties, and I wouldn’t mind if that 13% didn’t get a second chance[sup]1[/sup] if their second crime was anywhere near as bad as the first.
I should add the caveat that I’m a bleeding heart liberal pussy. 
[sup]1[/sup]I’m not advocating the death penalty here; I’d prefer something more like physical segregation from the rest of society.
I’m trying to find good numbers on recidivism for non-sexual violent crimes for comparison. Meanwhile, here is great review of the data on treatment efficacy and recidivism along with critiques of the limitations of the data.
The issues are: how long should someone be in for punishment; is keeping them longer than that because of future risk justifiable; and if so what degree of risk justifies it for what sort of crime.
Thank you Meta for your input. I’m not sure what I think yet myself.
Here are rates for recidivism in arsonists. 4 to 11% depending on whether or not they are mentally ill.