Registry Matters

The Static-99 is the most commonly used tool for sex offender risk assessment. Although many states are moving away from using risk-based assessments to offense-based models so they can comply with the Federal Adam Walsh act, some states still use assessments like the Static-99. A case from Rhode Island centers on another risk-based assessment tool, the STABLE-2007. In the Rhode Island Supreme Court case, State vs. Cesare, the court rules that the reliance on a STABLE-2007 assessment tool was not appropriate for determining Mr. Cesare’s assigned risk-level.

Therefore, he is eligible for a new assessment under a different tool. Other non-contact offenders can use that ruling to receive a new risk assessment.

Many who are on the registry would like states to move toward a risk-based model, but states are moving away from them. One reason is that the Adam Walsh Act recommends the use of categories to place individuals in tiers. Another reason states are moving away from risk assessments is the cost. It is easier to assign tiers on the type of conviction. Risk based assessments are more expensive to perform and are more complicated.

First of all, we need to determine what the goals are at the risk assessment scheme. Because risk assessment schemes are done for several reasons, including sentencing, parole, probation, supervision management. But in terms of registration, if you want a standalone system for registration, do you want to utilize the risk assessment to determine whether the person is visible on the internet website?

Or do you want to make it determine if the person’s duration of registration could be lessened depending on the risk? Or do you want to determine if there are any additional residence restrictions or housing or employment restrictions?

There are other important questions that need to be addressed in regards to risk-based registration.

How would you want the registration scheme to be modified?

Are you suggesting that the person not be listed on the website? Or do you want to reduce the registration periods based on the outcome?

How much would it cost to create the entity that would determine the person’s risk? That entity would need some level of staffing that would include professionals to conduct the individualized evaluations. Otherwise, you are stuck with using an instrument such as a Static 99. Which is what they are doing, I think up in Oregon.

What would the process of the appeal look like the register if they disagreed? Would it be administrative? Or would it be judicial? There’s a different level of expertise and a different level of proof and expenses related to those appellate processes.

So a lot of unanswered questions.

The episode includes several listener questions, and discussions about a bill in Oklahoma, a Clayton County corrections officer arrested for having sex with an inmate, and a short discussion about a bill in Georgia that seeks to expand the amount of criminal charges that would require bail.

Highlights

[02:01] Listener question about legislative win in Washington state.

[09:01] Are pardons recognized in other states?

[12:41] Rhode Island risk assessment case.

[38:35] Clayton County corrections officer who had sex with an inmate.

[50:16] Oklahoma bill that would allow nursing homes to the juvenile sex offender registry.

[56:04] Georgia House vote on bill that increases the number of crimes that require bail to be released from jail.

The Registry Matters Podcast’s mission is to cover issues surrounding the Registry. We cover cases that will peel back the veneer of what we need to do to change our lives for the better. We cover news articles that spark conversations about the total insanity of this modern day witch hunt. This podcast will call out bad policy and call out those that are making bad policy.

To change things for the positive, we need to act. We are 6-7-8-900k strong. With that many people, plus their friends and family, over a million people are affected by the registry. We should be able to secure donations to hire lawyers and lobbyists to move the agenda in our favor. We need our people to be represented.