Search Results

Keyword: ‘data’

Ohio Official Sex Offender Recidivism Data

April 15, 2010 Comments off

This is an Official Report from the State of Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
April 2001

Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases

Understand that “re commitment for a new crime” includes minor probation violations ranging from not reporting, to any failure to abide by any probation requirement. We know for a fact that probation officers often use any excuse possible to re-arrest a sex offender and they do. In one case, in Ohio, a released sex offender on probation was re-arrested because he shared a name with another sex offender in the county. In another, possession of an “R”-rated movie named “Kids” was used to re-arrest a sex offender on probation. And in another case, a sex offender on probation was threatened with arrest and charges for having a video security system at his residence.

The category of “re-committment for a technical violation ” indicates that the sex offender was found to be in violation of his probation and re-incarcerated for violating some probation requirement (see above) . Therefore, the focus on this data should be on re-arrest for another sex crime. After all, this is what all the societal hysterical concern is all about:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%. This rate was comprised of:

Recommitment for a New Crime 22.3 %

  • For Sex Offense 8.0 %
  • For Non-Sex Related Offense 14.3 %


Recommitment for a Technical Violation 11.7 %

  • For Sex Offense 1.3 %
  • For Sex Lapse 1.7 %
  • For Non-Sex Related Offense 8.7 %

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

Recidivism rates differed considerably based on a victim typology:

Sex offender type…………………General recidivism………….. Sex recidivism

Rapists – (adult victims) ………..56.6% …………………………..17.5%

Child Molester – extrafamilial ..29.2% ……………………………8.7%

Child Molester – incest …………13.2% …………………………… 7.4%

Sex offenders who returned for a new sex related offense did so within a few years of release. Of all the sex offenders who came back to an Ohio prison for
a new sex offense, one half did so within two years, and two-thirds within
three years.

Paroled Sex offenders completing basic sex offender programming (level 1)
while incarcerated appeared to have a somewhat lower recidivism rate than those
who did not have programming. This was true both for recidivism of any type
(33.9% with programming recidivated compared with 55.3% without
programming) and sex-related recidivism (7.1% with programming recidivated
compared with 16.5% without programming).

CONCLUSION:

The recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%
The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%

This is hardly the exaggerated claims of recidivism made by the media and hysterical society.
Spread the word, educate society. Ignorance is dangerous.

These Ohio statistics are in line with federal United States Department of Justice data, which reports:

Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child Victimizers re-arrested)
vs.
Recidivism Rates for NON- Sexual Offenders (67% re-arrested, 47% re-convicted)

See this page for USDOJ report: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidiv

Furthermore, see the REPORT TO THE OHIO CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION: SEX OFFENDERS JANUARY 2006
by the OHIO CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION

“Research has shown that sex
offenders recidivate at a lower rate than other offenders.

A review of 61 recidivism research studies
involving 24,000 sex offenders found that only 13.4 percent committed a new sex offense (Hanson and Morton-Burgon 2004). It further shows that when sex offenders do recidivate, they are more likely to commit a non-sex offense”



Advertisements

CNN : Show us the Recidivism Data

August 29, 2009 Comments off


CNN / Anderson Cooper AC360° : Recidivism rates for sex offenders.

All of this got us thinking – what are the recidivism rates for sex offenders? We found this report released a few years ago by the Department of Justice. It is a study based on convicted sex offenders who were released from prison in 1994.

Here are some of the findings from the study:

– Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. If all crimes are included, 43 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for various offenses.

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders. But sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

Click here for the full report.

California Sex Offense Recidivism Data

August 19, 2009 Comments off

forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com : CA Study: Shockingly low sex offender recidivism.

Research in California shows that only a tiny fraction – 3.38 percent – of released sex offenders are convicted of a new sex offense within 10 years of release. The study followed 3,577 prisoners who were released between 1997 and 2007 after serving time for sex offenses. (Note: this was before Adam Walsh Act enactment)

In an even larger parallel study by California’s Sex Offender Management Board, tracking 4,204 paroled sex offenders, only 3.21 percent were convicted of a new sex offense within 5 years of release.

In both studies, almost all of the recidivism came within the first year post-release. Sex offenders were returned to custody for parole violations at a lower rate than other paroled prisoners, despite the fact that they were supervised more intensely. And they were more likely to be rearrested for crimes other than sex offenses.

The findings are consistent with a smaller study two years ago of recidivism by civilly committed Sexually Violent Predators. Of 93 such high-risk offenders released from Atascadero State Hospital without completing treatment, only 4.3 percent reoffended within six years.

Download the 5-year data HERE; the 10-year data are HERE. (.doc files)

States Can’t Comply with Sex Offender Database

July 7, 2009 Comments off

washingtontimes.com : States struggle to comply with sex offender database.

Congress found it easy enough to pass guidelines for a national Internet database of sex offenders. Individual states are finding it far more difficult to comply with those guidelines.

Not a single state was ready to meet a deadline set for this month, prompting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to grant an extension. With a year’s reprieve, states are now wrestling with what they can and will do to satisfy the guidelines when they take effect in July 2010.

States that fail to comply will lose a portion of their annual federal justice grant(10% Byrne funding which is a pittance compared to the costs of implementation in every state), but California and Vermont are considering whether that would cost them less than implementing the program.

Maryland and other states will have to enact new laws, but some legislators oppose aspects of the federal guidelines involving the registration of juveniles and unlimited retroactivity. Virginia has legislation pending that would make it impossible to comply. D.C. officials say they are close to compliance but are awaiting further adjustments by Congress.

While some states are having problems with individual issues involving the new guidelines, others see an overall picture of dollars and cents. These states may ignore the guidelines entirely because implementation is too costly.

The California Sex Offender Management Board is urging the state not to comply with the act, which will involve “substantial and unreimbursed costs.” To offset the $2.1 million that would be lost in federal funding, the agency suggests using other resources to ensure local law enforcement and other programs are not affected. The board says the state’s current registry is sufficient.

Vermont has only one person updating its registry. Officials estimate the costs to implement the law would run into millions of dollars for new technology and staffing.

Sex Offender Data

January 11, 2009 Comments off

While more information regarding statistical myths and falsehoods is posted in our “Truth over Myth” posting in this blog, we felt it was constructive to post this additional official data to once again reiterate that much of the information found online is simply not true. (most of these documents are PDF files).

U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994 (latest available):

“Within 3 years following their release, 5.3% of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime.”

U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Criminal Offender Statistics
Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 % of sex offenders versus 1.3 % of non-sex offenders.

Child victimizers
* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.

State of Michigan, General Recidivism: Parole Board Statistics: 1990 through 2000:
Sex Offenders 2.46% average recidivism.

State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction -Ohio Official Sex Offender Recidivism Data:
Recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%
The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%

Child Victims:
Approximately
60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child’s family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). Relatives, friends, baby-sitters, persons in positions of authority over the child, or persons who supervise children are more likely than strangers to commit a sexual assault.

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted Runaway and Thrownaway Children : Official Most-Recent Study Statistics from The National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “results DO NOT indicate an increase in child abductions by strangers”

The Victimization of Children and Youth: A Comprehensive National Study (University of North Carolina, University of New Hampshire):
“The great majority of sexual victimizations were perpetrated by acquaintances”

U.S. Census statistics do not record statistics related to crime.
“The Census Bureau releases some statistics on the criminal justice system in our data on government employment and finance, but none on crime, criminals, or victims.”
Any statistics you read about sex offenders from U.S. Census statistics is a blatant falsehood.

Furthermore, there is no accurate count of sex offenders within the states or nation, but the numbers are estimated to be approximately 665,000 U.S. citizens who have been convicted of some “sex crime”. That’ s about one person in 455 U.S. citizens, folks.

Ohio Official Sex Offender Recidivism Data

June 3, 2008 Comments off

This is an Official Report from the State of Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
April 2001

Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases

Understand that “re commitment for a new crime” includes minor probation violations ranging from not reporting, to any failure to abide by any probation requirement. We know for a fact that probation officers often use any excuse possible to re-arrest a sex offender and they do. In one case, in Ohio, a released sex offender on probation was re-arrested because he shared a name with another sex offender in the county. In another, possession of an “R”-rated movie named “Kids” was used to re-arrest a sex offender on probation. And in another case, a sex offender on probation was threatened with arrest and charges for having a video security system at his residence.

The category of “re-committment for a technical violation ” indicates that the sex offender was found to be in violation of his probation and re-incarcerated for violating some probation requirement (see above) . Therefore, the focus on this data should be on re-arrest for another sex crime. After all, this is what all the societal hysterical concern is all about:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders followed-up for ten years after
release from prison was 34%. This rate was comprised of:

Recommitment for a New Crime 22.3 %

  • For Sex Offense 8.0 %
  • For Non-Sex Related Offense 14.3 %


Recommitment for a Technical Violation 11.7 %

  • For Sex Offense 1.3 %
  • For Sex Lapse 1.7 %
  • For Non-Sex Related Offense 8.7 %

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violations of
supervision conditions, was 11.0%.

Recidivism rates differed considerably based on a victim typology:

Sex offender type…………………General recidivism………….. Sex recidivism

Rapists – (adult victims) ………..56.6% …………………………..17.5%

Child Molester – extrafamilial ..29.2% ……………………………8.7%

Child Molester – incest …………13.2% …………………………… 7.4%

Sex offenders who returned for a new sex related offense did so within a few years of release. Of all the sex offenders who came back to an Ohio prison for
a new sex offense, one half did so within two years, and two-thirds within
three years.

Paroled Sex offenders completing basic sex offender programming (level 1)
while incarcerated appeared to have a somewhat lower recidivism rate than those
who did not have programming. This was true both for recidivism of any type
(33.9% with programming recidivated compared with 55.3% without
programming) and sex-related recidivism (7.1% with programming recidivated
compared with 16.5% without programming).

CONCLUSION:

The recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%
The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%

This is hardly the exaggerated claims of recidivism made by the media and hysterical society.
Spread the word, educate society. Ignorance is dangerous.

These Ohio statistics are in line with federal United States Department of Justice data, which reports:

Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child Victimizers re-arrested)
vs.
Recidivism Rates for NON- Sexual Offenders (67% re-arrested, 47% re-convicted)

See this page for USDOJ report: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidiv

Furthermore, see the REPORT TO THE OHIO CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION: SEX OFFENDERS JANUARY 2006
by the OHIO CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION

“Research has shown that sex
offenders recidivate at a lower rate than other offenders.

A review of 61 recidivism research studies
involving 24,000 sex offenders found that only 13.4 percent committed a new sex offense (Hanson and
Morton-Burgon 2004). It further shows that when sex offenders do recidivate, they are more likely to
commit a non-sex offense”



Constitutionalfights Blogs to be Set to Archive Status

July 15, 2011 Comments off

NOTE:
Constitutionalfights blogs were set to Archive Status and our email address was inactivated on Sept. 22, 2010.

History:
Our blogs were actively updated for 32 months. We had well over 250,000 readers and published more than 1100 blog posts. Our sole and primary mission was to repeal the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (Senate Bill 10) and to defeat it’s unconstitutionally retroactive implementation. However, our mission to defeat the Ohio Adam Walsh legislation has been accomplished. Therefore, we ceased actively updating these blogs.

Emailing Constitutionalfights:

Our email account is no longer active. You may still try to email us, but we do not check this email account at any regular interval. If you do email us, there is virtually no chance of the message getting to me unless it has a relevant subject line. If your email does not have a relevant subject line, it will surely be lost in the junk mail folder.

Also, if you do try to email us, please do not ramble on about your personal situation and tell me how bad it is. I know how much damage these laws to in the lives of those who are forced to deal with them. Everyone seems to write me long stories about about how unfairly they have been treated and how bad they have it, but don’t do this because I wont read it. Frankly don’t really care about the specific facts of your case. But if you have a legitimate question, I may still catch it if I check the email account periodically. Why do you think I started Constitutionalfights ? The answer is: to fight against these laws, because they were unconstitutional. I already know how damaging they are to families and individuals.

Finally, search our blogs before you ask a question. Most answers are found on our blogs. Use the search box on each blog to find related posts. For example: I am constantly asked by readers about laws in other states, or whom they can contact in their state. We only focused on Ohio legislation. Therefore, we do not know the laws in your state, and we are not familiar with laws related to moving to or from Ohio. If you read the blogs, you will see a Links Page with an RSOL link where each state’s organizer can be contacted.

I am not a legal professional and therefore I cannot and will not offer legal advice. So don’t ask me for legal advice.


Victory in Ohio:
Now, on the heels of the June 3, 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling which invalidated the reclassification of ex offenders into more punitive registration requirements, we claim this victory in our mission. we claim this victory for The Constitution of the United States of America and the rule of law.

Continuing the Battles:
But this is just one battle in the war against onerous, unconstitutional and ineffective sex offender laws across this country. We have posted countless times on our blogs how these sex offender laws are unjust, unconstitutional and ineffective. Hundreds of thousands of ex offenders remain victims of these laws. But the task of spearheading the battles of these citizens will have to be taken by others. Someone must and will eventually step forward just as we did. If not, hundreds of thousands of citizens will continue to have their throats under the boots of legislators across this great nation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Decision:
I have mixed feelings about ending our active involvement in these fights. I have thought long and hard about it. But the truth of the matter is that everyone in battles such as these are in it for their own interests. I have experienced this many times throughout this 2-1/2 year fight. When an individual’s interests are satisfied, they leave the fight. We lost many of those soldiers throughout these last few years. Even those who were in the fight with us but who did not benefit by this particular court ruling have become dismissive of our work now that we have claimed victory.

Furthermore, very few of those who contacted us, or followed our blogs, actually took any action to join the fight. Sure, there were a few individuals who sent letters and emails or made calls, but these are just a tiny fraction of those who were affected by these laws. Most people took no real action or got actively involved. Most emails I received were complaining to me about their situation, or asking me to do something for them.

Accolades:
I would like to recognize those who did do wonderful and effective work; RSOL, Ohio RSOL, Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and Policy Institute, Amy Borror of the Ohio Public Defender Office,

We received only three donations in 32 months. We thank those individuals for their generosity and help. If you would like to contriubute, you can still send a donation here for all the work we have done over the past 2-1/2 years. But once again, this lack of help by others makes the decision to step away much easier.


It’s Not Over:
Even after this victory in Ohio, we continue to see good people trampled on by politically-correct sex offender legislation. These laws are destroying families across the United States. Many good people are caught up in these webs of public shaming created by our state and federal legislators of both parties. Children of ex offenders are ostracized and shamed. Parents are banned from being involved parents. And people are being shamed on public government web sites and banned from living in certain areas or visiting public places.

Of course, there are some real monsters out there. But only these sensational crime cases make the headline news. Most ex offenders are not a danger to society and simply made a terrible mistake. I know of no one in this world who hasn’t made mistakes, yet this is the only group of citizens we refuse to forgive, or allow to continue on living a normal life.

Sadly, the Federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA) remains alive, albeit on “life-support”. It has been crippled with various legal challenges and revisions. All those who are affected by this terrible legislation should continue to seek its ultimate repeal. An AWA Study Guide can be downloaded here.

Lawsuit Against Ohio:

If any reader is a legitimate legal professional who is willing to organize a class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio, in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings which found these laws to be a violation of our constitutional rights, please contact us (or Ohio RSOL). Because these laws were enforced for two years before being ruled unconstitutional, we believe we have standing to form a large class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio.

Logic and Facts:
If we are to have offender registries, they must be risk-based. Evidence must be given in a court of law to prove that an offender is a high risk. If this evidence cannot be made in court, an ex offender should not be on a sex offender registry.

Sex Offender Registries should not be public ! Registries of those truly dangerous should be available to law enforcement agents only. Over 90% of sex assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. This “stranger danger” hysteria myth must be killed with factual data.

The widespread lies about sex offender recidivism must be defeated. Many research studies have been completed to determine actual sex offender recidivism. Their results almost always provide a recidivism rate range between 5 -15% .


Encouragement:
We urge all those who are still adversely affected by sex offender laws in this nation to become actively involved in the fight against them. Join and support the efforts of RSOL and your state RSOL affiliate. Write, email, call and meet with legislators, donate your time and money to the efforts of those actively fighting, create information blogs like ours, post responses to online articles, gather statistics and spread truth.

And so this blog is now set to Archive Mode. This means that we will no longer be updating it, but will retain its content for the world to read. We will also not be checking or responding to any emails after October 1, 2010. In addition to the above referenced reasons, this is partly due to the fact that too many people in the “network” too often abuse the “reply all” button without regard to whom they are sending emails.

Final Word:

“First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. ”

Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

Categories: Uncategorized

Fighting Ohio House Bill 77 – Reclassification of Sex Offenders

February 8, 2011 Comments off

This is a letter we sent today to the Ohio Representatives on the eve of the Criminal Justice Committee hearing of Wed, Feb 9th, 2011. We urge all readers to write, email and call the Representatives listed on the previous posting to strongly oppose this House Bill 77:

Representative:

I lead an organization named ConstitutionalFights which strongly opposes House Bill 77, introduced by Rep. Hackett. This bill will come before the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011.

HR 77 is the Legislature’s latest attempt to re-classify citizens who have a sex offense conviction in their past. We strongly urge you to oppose advancement of this bill.

The intent of HR 77 is very similar to that of Senate Bill 10, which was ruled as a constitutional violation on June 3, 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court in Bodyke vs, Ohio ( R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order).

The difference with HR 77 is that it orders all affected citizens to appear in court for a second sex offender classification hearing.
This is an attempt to bypass the Separation of Powers violation.

But in the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the challenges of Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto violations were not
even addressed by the Court. Had these challenges been decided, they would certainly have resulted in similar nullification of the law.

HR 77 requires any citizen with a sex offense who had not matriculated off the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 to appear before a Court for a second sex offender classification hearing. A majority of these individuals had fulfilled all requirements put upon them by the sex offender laws in place at the time of their conviction or plea. To haul them back into Court for a new classification hearing where a new set of registry requirements would be imposed is a violation of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. This bill violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto clauses of our Constitutional rights.

In addition to the constitutional violations of any law which attempts to retroactively reclassify offenders and to impose new and more stringent sex offender registry requirements, there are several other factors which our Legislature must consider when drafting sex offender legislation.

Firstly, there is no empirical or statistical data or evidence to support the contention that public sex offender registries have any
effect on recidivism or public safety. In fact, the only data correlating these two factors is in opposition to popular conception.
Publicly-accessible sex offender registries actually serve to isolate humiliate individuals to the point where they cannot build family and social support systems necessary to live productive and law-abiding lives. Along with residency restrictions, these public registries are no less than a Scarlet Letter which brands individuals, often
for a lifetime from normal social life and interaction.

Public sex offender registries do not prevent crimes. National media sensationalistic news reports of hideous sex offenses actually support this contention. In recent years, the highest profile news stories of sex offenses have involved men who were actively compliant registered sex offenders. These registries are simply a means for legislators to appear tough on sex crimes and an excuse for the public to feel better.
But the harm they do in the lives and families of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens caught up in the registry net is dramatic.

A popular myth is that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. The statistical data proves this to be false. The U.S. Department of Justice statistics refute this myth. USDOJ data reports that “Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child victimizers re-arrested)”
(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136)

The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation study, “Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases”, concludes that the recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%. The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%.
(http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf)

Numerous other studies have reported similar data. I can provide official sources.

Finally, this is just morally unjust. Most of the individuals who would be affected by legislation such as HB 77 are those who made a terrible error in their lives many years ago (often times 10 -20 years ago).
They have been living law-abiding, productive lives in the years since they served their debt to society. All of us make mistakes in our lives, yet sex offenders are the only group to which we give no second chance. If the laws are in place at the time of conviction, we have no argument. But imposing new laws in order to recapture those who completed their obligations many years ago is simply immoral and wrong.

I could continue with supporting arguments but in an effort to be concise, I will conclude. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional supporting information to the Committee members
for their consideration in these hearings. After the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs, Ohio) which we fought for 3 years, we have extensive experience in studying sex offender laws, their effects, and the related empirical data within Ohio and throughout the nation.

We urge you to strongly oppose House Bill 77 and any future legislation which attempts to retroactively classify those who have long since satisfied all registration requirements of their offenses.

Sexual Offender Facts

August 23, 2010 Comments off

BLUESHIFT: The purpose and objective of this site is to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws focusing on Ohio. Including the history and status of proposed legislation and court opinions and ongoing litigation.

Sexual Offender Facts Graphs and Statistics with footnotes and references.

Excerpts:

“Today in Ohio nearly 25,000 (or 99.99%) of registered sexual offenders DID NOT re-offend. Only .75 RSOs in Ohio recidivate sexually each day. (.75/25000)*100 = 99.99%.”

“The ten year recidivism rate for the group of sex offenders in this study was 11%. Eight percent of the offenders returned for a new crime. Another 3% were revoked for a parole violation that was sexual in nature (sex crime), or a relapse behavior (sex lapse).”

Reclassification Updates

August 18, 2010 Comments off

Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications:

We have created this new page on our blogs where we will post updates from readers who are monitoring whether their re-classifications were updated or not (most recent comments are at bottom of page).

If you have contacted the Ohio AG, your County Sheriff, or other state authorities and have valuable information to share with other readers, send an email to us here.

If you have seen your registration updated (re-classified or removed), let us know, as well:

On-going, updated total number of offenders on ESORN site
(Thanks to Kevin from ARC Talk Radio):
As of 6-06-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,361
As of 6-16-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,298
As of 6-21-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,206
As of 6-28-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,964
As of 7-05-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,723
As of 7-12-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,617
As of 7-21-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,529
As of 7-27-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,442
As of 8-02-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,392
As of 8-12-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,301
As of 8-17-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,290
As of 8-23-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,275
As of 8-30-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,240
As of 9-10-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,182
As of 9-13-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,176

We are told by the Ohio Public Defender Office that approximately 2300 individuals are slated to be removed. Keep in mind that people are forced onto this corrupt registry every day, as well. But still, we have seen only about 1000 people removed in three months.
————————————————————————
It is now June 15, and I am still on the registry. My registration should have ended on July 21, 2007 –D. from Licking County.
————————————————————————
Margie Slagle said someone in Clermont county was taken off as well. – Mary
————————————————————————
I have been following your website for months now regarding the AWA, and love your website it keeps me up to date on the latest news with senate bill 10 and the Ohio Supreme Courts decision on June 3,2010. It has helped my husband Ken to keep informed on the latest, because it directly involves him. He was convicted in 2005, and released in 2006 and was put on esorn to register yearly for 10 years then AWA added another 15 years to his regisration requirement, he petitioned his reclass through Butler County Courts within the grace period in 2008, and was ordered a “stay order” by the judge until the Supreme Court’s decision on senate bill 10. Ken heard the news June 3 on your website and was very happy about the decision. We have contacted the Butler County Sheriff office and Deputy Jacobs who handles esorn registration requirements and was told that the AG held a conference with their department to make changes to select registrants, yesterday Ken received a court hearing notice by the Butler County Court office for a reclassification hearing to be held on July 14, 2010. He was told that he did not have to be at the hearing, and that a notice would be sent within 30 days after the hearing on what the judge will be sending to the butler sheriff office to have his esorn changed to his orininal classification. I am not sure this is how every court is handling the reclassification, but in my husbands case it is. His records can be seen online at butler county court record info website for Butler County in ohio. – P. from Butler County.
————————————————————————
It seems to me an offender who has a judicial order in hand and can show they did all their registration in one county should be able to walk into their sheriff’s sex offender dept and have their registration removed or modified. Depends on whether or not that sheriff’s dept has its own database or relies on the AGs database. An interesting thing is that my boyfriend’s picture is different on the AG site than on the Hamilton county site. Has been pretty much all along. Hamilton county modifies the picture after each registration. Somehow that picture is not uploaded to Esorn. – Mary from Hamilton County.
————————————————————————
No, I have not been removed. I was originally due to be done with reporting Jan,2009 and had 5 years added after the AWA. I was informed by my lawyer on the day of the ruling that since it reverts back to the old law that I should be done completely with this. –
Doug from Cincinnati
————————————————————————
I am still improperly listed as a tier 2 offender, my first register was July 2000, I was a level 1, sexual oriented offender, this makes over 10 years I have registered, I should be removed from the list. – Jeff from Columbus
————————————————————————
I’ve checked to see if my classification has been updated on a daily basis & hadn’t seen a change in the registration. My profile is still there. It’s the same on the Clerk of Courts document since the Courts last stated that, my case has been put on hold until the Supreme Courts decision come down to change the docket. – Sonny
————————————————————————
If some people have been removed, I want to know how that happened. Please share what measures were taken, if any, to get you out of the registry. I am almost 1.5 years past my 10 year requirement, and waiting for the Public Defender in my SB10 delayed appeal to get a judicial order, or waiting for the AG to do their job. I believe a writ of mandamus could be filed to order the agencies responsible to remove you, or change your status, to do so. But everyone just seems to want to sit back and “be patient”. Do that, I feel a little like the sheep on its way to slaughter, because I know the conniving nature of the legislature. – Chris
————————————————————————
I am still on the esorn and my county website, nothing has changed. My lawyer suggested I go to the sheriffs office and see if they could speed up the process, I think its a waste of time and sent several emails to the att gen office and the Franklin County Ohio Sheriffs office, no response as of yet.
Posted by jeff
————————————————————————
Hello, I checked the registry & they have taken my name off the registry today, Friday, June 18, 2010. I’ve been calling & checking, so it’s gone. I am interested in know just how “gone” is the registry with regards to city, county, state & federal government? Your answer would be appreciated. Thanks very much to Constitutionalfights.org.
If you are need of support & possibly help. I’m here. Thanks again!!
Posted by Sonny

Sonny, we need to continue to keep the pressure on the AG. I agree with you: just because a name is removed from the registry does not mean it is gone for good. We need to keep the pressure on them until we have letters for documented proof! – CF.org
————————————————————————
I just checked and my name is no longer on the list. I’m curious to know what this means as far as me moving to another state. I recently checked into working and or moving to Indiana from Ohio and was told even though under Indiana law I had no obligation to register I would be in violation of federal AWA laws and nobody has been able to tell me how I can work or live in Indiana without breaking federal laws I even went to the federal prosecutors office. They sent me back to the county sheriff’s office. Who’s only advice was to stay in Ohio. They said possibly I could volunteer and sign a waiver and be on the list in Indiana, but they said (the detectives) they wanted to ask the state attorney told me to call back in a week or two. And now I’m no longer on Ohio’s list so where does that leave me now? Thanks DJ in NWOhio
————————————————————————
I checked the national sex offender database and my name and location is still listed but when you click on it it goes to the esorn list and says not for public record. i have emailed them and ask them to remove my name completely from thier search list. Thank You. Jeffrey from Columbus
————————————————————————
Just wanted to advise that as of this morning (6/23/2010) I have now received a letter from the Ohio AG office stating that my offender registration duties have now expired and I have now have NO duty to register within the state of Ohio. The letter is addressed from Mr Steven Raubenolt, Deputy Superintendent of BCI&I. – Jeff
————————————————————————
I am new to your web site. I wish I had known about it earlier. After much reading, I called the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office and spoke to Sgt.Julie Stephens the administrator of Montgomery County’s eSORN office. I told her my name and that I was a registered offender that had been reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act. I asked her what the recent court decision meant for my classification responsibilities. I was informed that I should receive a letter from the Attorney General in about two months stating that I would only be required to register once a year as I had previously done. I was also informed that there were no restrictions on where I live as my June 2000 conviction date preceded the 2003 (Megan’s Law?) law that required 1000 feet from a school and the 2007 law that required the same distance from day-care facilities. The eSORN database entry has not been changed as of this writing but I did just call an hour ago. I will keep you updated – Pat
—————————————————————————-
Montgomery County Sheriff’s office called this morning and informed me that I was required to register by today. I informed him that I was a bit surprised (though I was not) that I still needed to come register seeing as the law has been changed, to which he replied “It hasn’t been changed yet.”

Upon arriving at the office to register, I read the sign that they had posted in the window. I cannot quote it, but it basically was informing people that they were aware of the voiding of the AWA. It went on to say that while they were aware of it, the sheriff’s could not do any re-classifications – that was up to the Attorney General’s office. It also briefly explained how if you were previously a sexually oriented offender, what your new registration duties would be once an individual was reclassified.

Furthermore, when I went to Warren county for the secondary registration (I’m employed there), the person made a point to tell me that I would be receiving a letter from the AG’s office and what my new requirements would be. So while the sheriff’s offices are quite aware the law has been stricken, they are still fully enforcing it. – Jon
——————————————————————————–
Regarding Franklin County, I checked the eSORN website and I’m no longer on “The List”. In fact a lot of RSO’s in my low rent area are no longer showing on the list. There were about 10 of us, now there’s 4. Please note, I haven’t received any mail from the AG relieving me from registering. – Jay
——————————————————————————–
I have now been removed from the registry after a very polite letter to the assistant attorney general. My thought is that they have no easy way to sort out those that are to fall off the registry from those that will be required to continue to register under Megan’s Law. This was my only attempt to contact them after first contacting the AG office immediately after the ruling. I believe that this did help hurry my removal, and would recommend simply providing them with the county you were sentenced, when you were sentenced, the case number, the county you are living in now, your current Tier level, and your esorn ID # (found on your registration printout). Be cordial and keep the information clearly presented and you may be helping to speed up your removal. Note that I sent this e-mail about 2 days ago and saw the response today. If this e-mail is posted on constitutionalfights.org, it may create a larger volume of emails going to Mr. Hykes, so it may take longer in your case. I can only speculate that if I had sent repeated e-mails after not getting an immediate response, the delete button may have been pressed and I’d still be waiting. My advice is to send one polite e-mail and wait as patiently as you can. If he starts getting 500 to 1000 e-mails a day, many duplicate, he may just end up setting up a filter to reply with a canned response and let the team reviewing the files get to it when they can. – Tom
——————————————————————————–
Following Tom’s recommendation I in turn sent a brief letter to Assistant Attorney General Justin Hykes, during the early morning hours on June 29th, and shortly after I went to bed (I work late). When I woke up at around 2:30pm, this very same day, the first thing I did was to check both the County and the State websites and I am no longer finding my name listed on either one.

My letter basically stated that I was recently made aware of State vs Bodyke and that I began looking into it to see how it would affect me. I also pointed out that I had learned that it might take some time to filter through the large database of offenders to figure out who all would be affected, and that another person (Tom) had recommended sending a short email. Base on Tom’s recommendation I supplied the following information in my email:

Name, Case Number , Date Sentenced, County Sentenced, e-SORN ID Number:, Pre-AWA Classification,Post-AWA Classification, Current County of Residence

I am still waiting for my letter from the Attorney General. I would like to thank Tom for his suggestions. Had he not posted them I would probably still be sitting here anxiously checking the websites every couple of hours, day after day. – Another Tom
——————————————————————————–
FREE AT LAST!!! I received a letter today from the Ohio AG relieving me of my duty to register. I know the fight is not over. Former sex offenders are being oppressed not only in Ohio, but from coast to coast. I encourage all those who have benefited from this most recent battle to stay in the war and help other RSO’s still struggling to lead better lives. – Jay
——————————————————————————–
I just wanted to let you know that I received my letter from the AG today as Justin Hykes had promised in his e-mail response this time last week. – Thomas
——————————————————————————–
Your blog has been a wonderful resource for the past 2 1/2 years. Thank you so much for all the information. Who could ever have guessed that this would come out in favor of my family member and all the other registrants whose rights were violated by the Adam Walsh Law of 2007!! I am thrilled as I am sure you are also. Can’t thank you enough. – A family member of a soon to be off the list non-dangerous registrant.
——————————————————————————–
I was surprised to receive an email response from Justin Hykes this morning telling me that I would be reclassified back to my original court ordered classification and that the sheriff would be notified this afternoon. True to his word, my classification on the ESORN website and the sheriff’s website have been updated. It took persistence, but it definitely paid off. Thank you so much for all your help and information! You have been great!! – Q
——————————————————————————–
I have been visiting your blog daily for months, especially since the Bodyke decision came down. Thank u for all of your hard work and diligence.

I was a sexually oriented offender in Ohio who was reclassified to tier II. The day of the decision, I was informed by the APA that my post release control was also terminated… At my registration yesterday, I showed the sheriff my termination from APA and they immediately changed my supervision to “released” on the website (something I think could be important in the event of a traffic stop or a visit). I asked about the reclassification and was told that it will be months before I should expect my letter.

I emailed ohleg support with all of the information they need to make the change: name, drc #, esorn #, case #, court name, and date that I was adjudicated SOO by the court from the journal entry. I was very professional, explained that I understood that they were re-classing Predators and Habituals first and politely asked for a time frame that I could expect the SOO’s to be finished.

In the closing paragraph, I explained that i had provided all the information that they would need to re-class me and asked them to expedite my reclassification so I can move back to PA. without the 25 yr registration hanging over my head.

Today, i received an email saying that it was done and I should expect my letter next week and the website has been updated with the reclassification.

It seems that the AG does not mind having the offender do the legwork of finding all the information for them…If an offender has all of the paperwork, I suggest that they wrap it up in a neat little, polite email, send it off and help them do their job.
It took them less than 1 business day. – N.D.
——————————————————————————–
I just wanted to write you and inform you of my fight in Ohio. I have hired an attorney to help me with this, and here is my story:

I was convected in Aug, 1999 of a sex related charge in FEDERAL court. When I was released pending my sentencing, I was told by the probation / pre-trial that I had to register. I was never charged in state court! and never given a hearing to classify me. My probation office decided that for me. (nice of her). I was classified as an oriented offender (lowest level). Now forward to today. I was about to be removed from the registry (3 months to go) and here comes the Adam Walsh Act. Now I have 5 more years to do. Now that the Supreme Court of Ohio (bless them)
has moved it back to 10 years, I should be off the registry. I can get no answer from anyone is the Sheriff’s office nor from the prosecutors office. I decided to hire a lawyer to fight for me. He is now in the process of fighting to have me removed as I write. I will keep you informed as this turns out. – Scott
——————————————————————————–
Still waiting for them to update my file they still have me as a tier
3 . When are they going to fix this? I also have people
working on this. –Robert
——————————————————————————–
It is bittersweet to read your announcement today about closing the blog. It has given me so much hope over the past 2-3 years. But of course the very wonderful part is that (barring any State of OH AG mess-ups) it means the fight is over and those of us affected, registrants as much as close family members, have, at last, won our constitutional rights. Thank you so much! All the best to you. –JMC
——————————————————————————–
My name is Paul xxxx and I was just returned to my previous classification by Justin Hykes today! I am once again A sexually oriented offender. My question is do you think I could file a lawsuit to remove me completely? I was originally supposed to register once a year until 2013 but since 2008 I’ve registered 3 times a year. My thoughts are I was supposed to register 10 times. I’ve registered 9 times in three years alone. What do you think my chances are? –Paul

Paul,
If you’re asking to sue to remove your felony record, the only way you can do that (as far as we know as non-legal professionals) is this: In Ohio, your first felony can be expunged from your record. You must file for this through the state. It is not guaranteed, but possible.

If you are asking if you can sue because you were forced to register illegally, I do encourage you to do so. We will be posting on this topic soon. The State of Ohio illegally required thousands of people do register illegally and should be sued. –CF.org
——————————————————————————–
I recently recieved a letter from the OH atty Gen. office telling me that my requirements have expired and that I am no longer required to register as a sex offender in the state of Ohio – GR
——————————————————————————–
For what it’s worth, I just received a letter from Richard Cordray, Ohio Attorney General indicating that my Sex Offender Registration Re-classification has been rescinded that reverts my registration requirement back to a one-year report requirement as per the original plea bargain agreement. – Glenn
——————————————————————————–
Got a call from the A.G.s office..I have been reclassed. No letter yet. Thanks, hope more people get helped as I have.!! – Brian
——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————–

Categories: