National Sex Offender Public Registry

it is just that there are a range of acceptable methods of statistical analysis.

some methods aren't considered acceptable or aren't considered acceptable to use on certain kinds of data. if you do that then people typically jump on you for bad statistical analysis.

but there are still a range of acceptable statistical methods.

so what tends to happen in practice is you pick the statistical method that most shows what you want to show.

at a very simple level... one has to pick the scale of the graph. one wants the scale to be small if the differences one has found are only just statistically significant (aka small differences). by having a small scale the visual impression is that the differences are large. that is just one simple way in which the methods you use affect the information you convey which influences the take home message.

if you look at individual statistics... i've heard the best predictor of violence is history of violence. so if you take one individual and track them through time then pick a time slice of the individual (say age 20) and ask 'is this person likely to commit a violent crime?' then if he has committed a violent crime in the past it is more likely he will in the future.

but another way to look at it is in terms of a sample size of the population. take a time slice of people (say age 20) and then take the numver of offenses over the next 10 years and then ask 'how many of those offenses were committed by people with a past history of offending?'.

subtly different questions...
subtly different research methods...
subtly different statistical analyses...

different answers.

science is like that... that is why 'facts' are challenged. that is why 'facts' change. while you can't quibble about what the particular study found you can certainly quibble over whether the sample size was adequate, whether they were testing what they thought they were testing, whether their statistical analyses were legitimate, whether other statistical analyses would lend themselves to very different conclusions, whether the findings generalise back to the general population, whether the findings generalise back to interesting information about the hypothesis they began with.

different studies are often interpreted in contradictory ways... science is really a rather messy business when it comes down to it...

and in all this... i worry about individuals getting lost in statistics. i worry about MY chances of improvement given MY dx. I don't care if 99.99999% of people with my dx get worse - I could be that 0.000001 person who improves. And you know what... The liklihood of my improving given that I improve is 100% so there!

I kinda like the TAB motto:

You know the stats... Now beat 'em!!!!!

But sometimes the gamble is my life...
Others lives...

Stats change depending on the information that is considered relevant to be plugged in.

For example... What is the average age that people 'like me' live to?

I'm female.
I'm white.
I have brown hair
I'm a smoker
I have 10 fingers

How do you decide which information is and is not relevant? What information you choose to use affects the stats you get.

So... IMO it is wise to be wary of stats... Because... If they really pissed you off it is only too easy to construct your own set (by legitimate research methods) to show... Whatever you want!!!!!

(Though that is probably overstating the point)

Crazy scientists huh

:-)

I'm going to try and nail down some of these objections if I can. Forgive me (and correct me) if I've misrepresented your argument.

Objection 1: Not everyone in the database is going to re-offend.
Answer: Of course not, but there's currently no way to predict who will and who won't. (Those who have sought treatment are less likely to re-offend than those who haven't, but there are still plenty of "treated" folks out there who do.)

Objection 2: This database screws up the lives of people who truly are rehabilitated.
Answer: There are examples here and there of people acting out against sexual offenders, but I haven't seen any evidence that this database contributes to this violence. This argument is a bit like saying that we shouldn't publish kids' pictures in the newspaper when they win a spelling bee (or whatever) because a pedophile could use that information to target them.

Objection 3: This database lulls people into a false sense of security.
Answer: How? Is there any evidence for this? Has anyone ever even heard anyone say anything like, "Now my kids are safe, because this database tells me everyone who could hurt them and now I can keep them away"? I just don't believe that most people think that way, and I haven't seen any evidence to think otherwise.

special_k said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I agree that they have the right to say what they want in the privacy of their own homes... I guess... I'm just trying to say that I don't think freedom of speech is an absolute right that takes priority over all other considerations.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I never said it was absolute. But I also didn't say a person has the right to say whatever they want ONLY in the privacy of his or her own home.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
- Lets say a school teacher wanted to teach his students that the current evils in the world were due to blacks / jews etc. Do you think he should be allowed to spout hate speech in the classroom?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

No. Teachers aren't supposed to teach their world and religious views. They're supposed to teach the subject they were hired to teach. There are certainly points of view, though, espoused by schools that are taught, however, whether one thinks that's right or wrong. For instance, at least when I was in school, we were taught about slavery and mistreatment of blacks and the Holocaust. Some people would consider that wrong. But in the public schools, in general, personal views aren't supposed to be taught. It's different in religious and private schools.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
- Lets say someone stands in a building and yells 'Oh my god the building has been bombed!'. When they know full well it hasn't. Do you think they should be allowed to do that?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Of course not. That causes physical endangerment. But I do think a person is entitled to share their opinions, whether I consider them right or wrong.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
- Lets suppose that someone tries to recruit people to bomb a building or something...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Again, that is physical endangerment and is not acceptable.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Or tries to persuade people that god wants them to become a terrorist bomber or something like that. Do you think they should be allowed to do that?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I think they have a right to say that's what they think their god wants, but they don't have a right to do it. Many people push religious views to say that gays, atheists, promiscuous, and other people don't deserve equal rights and should be discriminated against, or even put to death. Is that different?

Before I go on, define "hate speech" for me. Which of these qualifies as hate speech:

1. People saying they hate blacks, and that blacks should be harmed or killed.
2. People saying they hate blacks, but not pushing for blacks to be harmed.
3. People saying that they don't hate Jews, but that Jews should be discriminated against in jobs or other ways.
4. People saying that Asians should be permitted to live as they want, but live in separate neighborhoods from whites, who should be separated from blacks, who should be separated from Latinos, etc.
5. People who say that races other than their own should live in other countries.
6. People who say that whites are better at math than blacks.
7. People who say that blacks are better athletes than whites.

Obviously, I could go on, but I want to get a little better idea of where you're coming from; are we talking only about espousing violence, or discrimination, or segregation, even if a person doesn't claim to actually "hate" a group?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

In order for them to have power they need to persuade other people around to their cause...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

True. But underground, they don't need to always do that. They just need to find others like themselves, who already believe that way. Look at the sex trafficking industry. In other countries, it isn't underground, but here in America, most people would be shocked to find out there may be houses and buildings that are operating as brothels that include children in their very own neighborhoods.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

So you think that if we listened to them more their power wouldn't be so great? I'm not so sure about that...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

That's not what I said. I said, if they were out in the open, we'd be aware of who's involved in such activities, and it would make them easier to catch.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
So it is okay for teachers to share their hate with their students then?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Not in schools, but in the general public, as long as they're not inciting riots or violence, they can. They're allowed to say what they want, as long as they don't incite.

special_k makes some good points.

i guess from the viewpoint of someone who has spent quite a bit of time working IN the prison system, i would like to reiterate that the database is not a tool to predict recidivism.

if you're really interested in this type of thing, i'd suggest you look at how reoffending risks are calculated before someone is released.

Check this for an example - NZ's ROC*ROl. It explains how Risk of Conviction and Risk of Imprisonment are calculated, and situations in which risk calculations are overriden (often in sexual offence cases.

http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/research/roc/

Jury selection is going on now in Fla.. John Couey confessed to murdering Jessica Lunsford, a 9 year old little girl. He molested her and buried her alive in his backyard.. He has been arrested 24 times in the past 30 years... He is also registered as a sex offender.......

Lost my glasses again and can't see if there are typos.. anyway the trial will be on court tv, should you want to watch.. I doubt i will watch it... Makes me ill just thinking about what he did to her...

going back to the sex offenders...i would like to try and shed some light on the subject from a slightly different point of view. i have been sexually abused, it was 9 years ago, and it was by my brother, it happened numerous times. i havent ever told anyone (by that i mean the law, or family etc) but the debate i have in my mind is should i tell the law about my brother. i am undecided whether he will do it again, he shows no guilt for what he did, no remorse, so should he punished. does he deserve to be on that list. the 'one time offenders', in some cases, should be, and are correctfully on that list because even though they might not commit sexual behaviour again, the fact is they did it once, they should be punished.

i truly believe, going back to the bus driver story, he was treated unfairly,and i do feel sympathetic towards him. plus, it is near on immposible to look at incidents on the list and judge them as though they are all the same circumstances etc, they are all diferent, but a reason why the offenders list is good is because it can be a detterent to offenders who may offend in the future...sure...if they are going to offend, i seriously doubt a list (and the thought of being on it) will stop them doing it, thoughts like that only exist in rational minds, and the minds of offenders, IMO, are not rational.

but it does shed more light on the fact that someone in this thread said it doesnt highlight the offenders that will offend in the future...true...but, like in my case, i am currently living at home with my dad and my brother, so i am living with somebody i know deserves to be on that list, he should be punished for what he did, BUT, this raises the question, does he deserve to be punished 9 YEARS after the offence and do i feel safe knowing theres that slight chance he could re-offend (by that i mean its happened before, but will it happen agin to someone else), and could i, by telling the law about him, could i stop someone getting abbused by him in the future.

every case is different, and i do agree with the list, and i do not belive people should have the objectives to try to convict one time offenders out of revenge for a failed relationship in which sexual consent did occur.

i think the list of offenders is a fall-back for the government because if (god forbid) a previous offender who is on the list moves to a small town (for arguements sake) and commits a sexual act on a young child, and the list did not exist, there would be alot of anger within the community and alot of resentment towards the government for not letting the residents of that town know there was an offender amongst them.

its easy for a victim of abuse, like me, to judge offenders and feel hatred for them all, but i dont, because i know each case is individual and different from the next, with these type of things they have to be taken very carefully and individually because otherwise, as the bus driver person is aware, the wrong people can be accused of commiting a crime they didnt even commit.