The need for accurate reporting of the facts extends to extend to registry reform activists

I have hosted the OnceFallen website since December 2007, and if there is one thing I take seriously, it is accuracy in reporting the facts. No one can dispute the accuracy of the statistics on my website because I link directly to the course and cite the stats verbatim as much as possible. I have covered the complex topic of recidivism extensively. Recidivism is the kind of issue in which citing a sole study with a single number is not a good way to estimate how often registered persons commit subsequent offenses. 

As an anti-registry activist, it is important to me to offer the most accurate portrayal of stats possible because I have an opinion that makes me unpopular, namely I want to #abolishtheregistry. That means my arguments are heavily scrutinized than, say, someone claiming to be a victim advocate. Thus, I take offense when I see people within the registry reform groups write intentionally misleading stats. I'm going to start by dissecting a misleading statistic from a meme created by registryreport.org. 

First off, I can't even figure out which study Registry Report is citing. None of the five year studies listed on my Recidivism Chart specifically state 3.5% either in rearrest and reconviction. If he is attempting to cite the 2003 DoJ study, it reported a 5.3%rearrest rate and a 3.5% reconviction rate after three years, not five. The DoJ did release a 5 year study on recidivism in which 5.6% of people convicted of rape/ sexual assault but did not post reconviction rate. Recently, the DoJ published a 9-year study that stated (inaccurately I may add) a 7.7% reoffense rate but stated only half led to a conviction. (Note: Elsewhere, they stated the 7.7% number were of people that were released for the sex crime in which they were currently incarcerated, but if you add in people previously convicted of sexual offenses but were released from incarceration for a different offense, the rearrest rates were 7.2% and by virtue of the statement only half of arrests led to conviction, then the reconviction rate was about 3.8% after 9 years.)

Admittedly, the recent DoJ study is a hot mess of a report, so if you don't want to crunch the numbers yourself, then I suggest you read my recent report on the "Unique Threat Myth."

That isn't the main problem with the stat although it cannot be contributed to any one study, since similar studies also find reoffense rates in the single digits no matter whether you are using rearrest rates or reconviction rates. The REAL problem is the comparison between people convicted of sexual offenses and other offenders is intentionally misleading.

To understand why that is an issue, you have to understand there are different types of recidivism. You have the sex crime-specific recidivism, sometimes referred to as reoffending. There is also a general recidivism rate, often just called recidivism, which means any subsequent arrest or conviction (or whatever other standard used by the study). Obviously, people are generally concerned about the levels in which a person convicted of a sex offense or other violent crime commits the same type of act. But just as the victim advocate groups misquote a stat to show that there is a unique threat by people convicted of sexual offenses, some advocates use the wrong stats by comparing sex-specific reoffense to general arrests of other offense types.

In the 2016 DoJ report covering a five year rearrests, Table 2, the rate in which a released prisoner was REARRESTED of a subsequent offense of the same type were:

• Homicide: 2.1%
• Rape/ Sexual assault: 5.6%
• Robbery: 13.1%
• Burglary: 23.2%
• Fraud/ Forgery: 29.7%
• Assault: 34.4%
• Larceny/ Motor Vehicle Theft: 41.4%
• Drug Offenders: 51.2%
• “Public Order Offenses”: 59.6%

It is no surprise that the less serious the offense, the more likely there was an arrest. But for the more violent offenses, the number is well below the 40%-80% claim made by Registry Report. Taking arrests of ANY crime type:

Homicide: 51.2%
Rape/ Sexual Assault: 60.1%
Public Order: 73.6%
Drug: 76.9%
Robbery: 77%
Fraud/ Forgery: 77%
Assault: 77.1%
Burglary: 81.8%
Larceny/ motor vehicle theft: 84.1%

This brings up an important issue in this complex topic of reporting recidivism--over the years, many groups cited the larger rearrest rate of 5.3% rather than the 3.5% reconviction rate in the 2003 DoJ three year study and simply stated that "sex offenders have a 5.3% recidivism rate." That was laziness on the part of those activists who penned that. We need to state when a stat is a rearrest rate, a reconviction rate, or some other rate because that matters. In the recently released nine-year study by the DoJ, half of arrests led to conviction. (It is noted in the "highlights" section on page 1.) Registry Report failed to do state what kind of rate he is using. 

It seems to me Registry Report is being intentionally misleading, and if anyone reads these studies, they'd figure out this stat is misrepresented. In turn, that makes the movement look bad because people already assume we have an agenda and are looking at any excuse to dismiss our claims. 

I should not have to fact check another activist group but the accurate portrayal of recidivism is a central theme. I don't like to espouse a particular number. I believe reconviction rates are superior to rearrest rates since at least there was some semblance of a standard of proof a crime indeed occurred. I think we should not settle on a single number from a single study; instead, I like to use an average annual rate as well as a statement proclaiming dozens of American studies have found a clear of consistent pattern of low reoffense rates. 

Accurate statistics matter. We should hold ourselves to the highest of standards. I can't vouch for any other group, only my own. And if other organizations cannot hold themselves to a higher standard, they should not be supported.