FAMILYWATCHDOG.US Can't Get Facts Straight

Have you ever heard of "FAMILYWATCHDOG.US?" (You won't get direct links to them here because The Angry Offender refuses to contribute to their Google ranking. Cut-and-paste as needed.) The previously mentioned corner of the Internet has the audacity to claim (in reference to the study by Human Rights Watch on sex offenders): "While taking two years to produce this report, FAMILYWATCHDOG.US, the nation's leading registered sex offender search and alert service, took less than 24 hours to expose the 146 page report as an inaccurate, irresponsible and fraudulent editorial masquerading as a research study." In 24 hours, they claim to have performed the same level of quality research and statistical analysis as Human Rights Watch, who produced the report being referenced. Let's let their "rebuttal" speak for itself. Mass B.S. debunking follows.

Color legend: HRW report, FAMILYWATCHDOG.US "rebuttal," Angry Offender teardown.

(page 24) With the purpose of helping parents identify unknown convicted sex offenders in the neighborhood, sex offender laws like community notification schemes reflect the assumption that children and adults are most at risk from strangers. Yet sexual violence against children as well as adults is overwhelmingly perpetrated by family members or acquaintances. Conclusion: This statement demonstrates a shortsighted and myopic view of the safety net the publicly available registry of convicted sex offenders provides the community. On the contrary, here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here are credible sources stating the exact same "shortsighted and myopic view" that happens to be a fact: 85% or more of all sex offenses (especially against children 12 and under) are perpetrated by people KNOWN TO THE VICTIM, NOT STRANGERS. A simple search on AltaVista for "90 percent sexual offenses" yields every single one of these qualified and reliable sources within the first three pages of results, but apparently FAMILYWATCHDOG.US can't use a search engine properly if they missed all of these sources that indicate HRW got it right.

Background: "Joseph Frank Smith, who had been known in Texas as the Ski Mask Rapist, was allowed to move into my neighborhood - just around the corner from my house. According to his own defense attorney, he was linked to a minimum of 286 victims (most of them children) in two states - Texas and Virginia. If there had been a registry available at that time, there is NO WAY I would have allowed my children anywhere near him, and thus they would NOT have been victimized by him." -Polly Franks, mother of 2 molestation survivors and Executive Director, the Franks Foundation. Polly Franks makes the assumption that she would have memorized all of the sex offenders on the Sex Offender Registry at that time. The harsh reality is that, as it was said, "Megan's Law wouldn't have saved Megan." Maureen Kanka didn't know that there was a house with three convicted repeat sex offenders living right near her home, despite the fact that the entire neighborhood around her knew that fact. Polly Franks suffers from what could be dubbed "Maureen Kanka syndrome," where she makes the excuse that a Registry would have prevented the crime. She cannot prove this, and I have observed an interesting trend in the nation where shielding a child against everything bad is the top priority, rather than teaching the child how to protect themselves and how to deal with bad things in life that they will inevitably be exposed to after "leaving the nest" for any period of time, be it a walk to elementary school, a high school football game, or college.

Indeed, the true value of identifying individuals that have been convicted of prior sex crimes has little to do with forensic capabilities and even less to do with identification of strangers. Sex offender registries provide vital information about offenders known and familiar to you, allowing you to decide who to allow into your life and the lives of those you love, care for and nurture. A marginal side benefit is that the sex offender registry can be used as a forensic tool to identify an offending stranger after a sexual attack. I need only mention the gross expansion and inaccuracy of information presented on Registries to debunk this statement. There are too many low-risk offenders, dead offenders, and out-of-state offenders on many state Registries to be able to use them for anything truly helpful. In a Registry with 10,000 offenders, all classed the same regardless of actual crime and status, good luck being able to memorize the faces of the ones that are actually dangerous and identifying them in public.

This mistaken premise that sex offender registries are only useful for stranger attacks is the crux of the failing of this report. Managing the epidemic of sexual assaults perpetrated upon our communities will require many tools. Used properly, sex offender registries are one of the best tools available. Sex offender registries reduce the number of assaults because Americans are able to identify known threats within their acquaintance sphere. The premise was never mistaken, as shown above. There is no "epidemic of sexual assaults" and FAMILYWATCHDOG.US can't provide real proof that there is--thus the lack of citations. "Used properly" is not something that we see happening with public usage of Sex Offender Registries; the vigilantism and provocation of reoffense factors by emotionally blinded fools in the public is far more prevalent and easily shown to be a constant fact, but there is zero proof that a Sex Offender Registry prevented a sex crime from occurring.

No one can dispute that there is an epidemic of sexual assault in our society today. This is stated on the first page of the report. It should be everyone's goal to prevent sexual assaults, rather than prosecute offenders. After all, if there is an offender, there is at least one victim. Past acts are predictors of the future, and what someone has done in the past demonstrates what they are capable of in the future. Not what they will do, but what they are capable of. This is classic subtle manipulation of the public at its finest. Note the assertion that "NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THAT THERE IS AN EPIDEMIC!" This is no different than the political exploitation of global warming, where politicians state "there is no debate in the scientific community" despite the fact that there is plenty of debate going on. Note also the statement about past acts. How many of you who are reading this now have done something that can only be described as "damned stupid" in your past? You alone are proof that someone can do something awfully damned stupid and never do it again, because no one exists that has done nothing wrong in their lives. This entire paragraph by FAMILYWATCHDOG.US is manipulative propaganda, nothing more.

(page 39) At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor; This is one of the biggest sex offender myths propagated by registry opponents. There are no more than 463 offenders in a population of over 150,000 that could possibly have been convicted of peeing in public. Note how the HRW quote that FAMILYWATCHDOG.US chose doesn't assert that any specific number of people are convicted of registerable public urination. The rest of that entire page is a discussion of their counterclaim, but their counterclaim is based on a false premise. Furthermore, the entire page is mostly uncited information, rendering the figures given questionable at best and artificially generated at worst. Also, the assumptions made regarding the requirement that someone sees genitalia while urinating in public are classic straw man arguments.

The meat of the argument: (page 38)The US Department of Justice tracked 9,691 male sex offenders in 15 states who were released from prison in 1994 and found that within three years only 5.3 percent of all sex offenders were arrested, and 3.5 percent convicted, for a new sex crime; 2.2 percent were rearrested for a sex offense against a child. (page 38)State-specific studies have yielded similar results. For example, in Ohio, only 8 percent of former sex offenders were reincarcerated for another sex offense within a 10-year period. Sex offenders who returned for a new sex offense did so within a few years of release. Within three years of their release, 2 percent of New York inmates who had served time for a sex offense returned to prison with a conviction for another sex offense. Within nine years, the number was 10 percent. Conclusion: In long-term sex offender recidivism studies the rate of reconviction is between 40 and 50+%. HRW cites time-limited studies that do not accurately report recidivism rates. Dead wrong, and we'll tear down all of your cherry-picked data HERE AND NOW:

• "the true recidivism base rate over 25 years for extrafamilial sexual abusers is 52% and for rapists is 39%. This study allows that a 20 year recidivism rate can be determined. Increasing the time line to 20 years increased the recidivism rates to 28% and 41%, respectively." Quote fails to distinguish between recidivism in general and sexual offense recidivism in particular, which makes it worthless because the concern regarding sex offenders is over their sexual offense recidivism rates, not their crime recidivism rates in general. As an example of why general recidivism figures are problematic, littering or shoplifting are misdemeanor crimes and would qualify as recidivism (and therefore be counted in the general recidivism stats), but not as felony crime recidivism or sexual crime recidivism.
  
  
• The recidivism rate, which is defined as rearrest and/or reconviction, is 24% for all offenders, and as high as 37% for molesters that have targeted a male. The same problem as the previous point exists: this point does not distinguish specifically between SEXUAL OFFENSE RECONVICTIONS and other convictions, arrests, or sexual offense rearrests that resulted in acquittal of the charges.
  
  
• 42% of the total sample were reconvicted for sexual crimes, violent crimes*** / ***Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Non-incarcerated Paraphiliacs by Abel et al in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1987, vol 2, no 1, pp 3-25. Note that the citation is of "Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Non-incarcerated Paraphiliacs." This sample is questionable, because the study's sample is unrepresentative of sexual offenders as a whole; paraphiliacs are people with various sexual fetishes; not all sex offenders are paraphiliacs. "Self-reported sex crimes" are not verifiable sex crimes in any way. Indeed, they could even be fabricated as fantasies in the offender's mind, yet "self-reported" as a crime against an actual child, despite no crime actually being committed. There is no way to verify anything in such a study, and it seems that many studies which attempt to produce the highest recidivism rates possible for sex offenders have no choice but to target "self-reported crimes of paraphiliacs" and ignore all other evidence to the contrary to fabricate such outlandish figures. The implications of the title are that incarcerated persons are ignored, non-paraphiliacs (a paraphiliac is someone who has a sexual attraction to something unusual) are ignored, and the definition of "paraphiliac" includes anyone with a sexual fetish rather than specifically focusing on those being "turned on" by committing rape or performing sexual acts on a child or young teen. Also, "self-reported" implies that non-self-reported recidivism rates are ignored in the sample that is already heavily implied as being highly unrepresentative of convicted sex offenders as a whole.
  
  
• The majority of adult male perpetrators have sexually abused more than one victim. 70% claim to have abused 1-9 children, 23% claim to have abused 10-40 children, and 7% claim to have abused 41-450 children. 6.6% of perpetrators also claim to have sexually assaulted an adult victim....The number of sexual acts against children committed by pedophiles ranges from about 20 to nearly 300 per offender. This doesn't have anything at all to do with SEXUAL OFFENSE RECIDIVISM. These figures reek of more subtle manipulation rather than addressing the recidivism rate statistics they are attempting to attack.
  

(page 32) In our sample, 67 percent of the registrants reported indecent liberties with a minor as the registerable offense (this is a broadly-defined offense that need not include violence and need not even involve physical contact with the minor victim). Another 10 percent were registered for rape (first and second degree), The other 23 percent were registered for other sex crimes. Conclusion: 83% (10,201) of Indecent Liberties Minor convictions (12,309) involved a sexual encounter between an offender over the age of 21 and a victim under the age of 16. 17% of Indecent Liberties Minor convictions (2108) were committed by an offender 21 or younger targeting a victim at least 6 years younger than the offender. Background: In order to convict for Indecent Liberties Minor it must be proven that the victim was under 16, the offender was at least 16, there was at least a 5 year age difference in age and the purpose was "for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire;". No reasonable person should believe that a 17 year old should "arouse or gratify a sexual desire" with an 11 year old (or younger), 18 / 12, 19 / 13, etc. Source: http://www.ncfindoffender.com/ Funny thing...none of this "information" is presented anywhere at ncfindoffender.com at all. In fact, a Google search for a specific phrase in their first statement yields only one source...FAMILYWATCHDOG.US, the people making these statements. Similar searches yield nothing at all other than FAMILYWATCHDOG.US's "rebuttal." This is a completely unsourced page and should simply be ignored. As the old joke goes, "87% of statistics are made up on the spot."

(page 38) The only reason I am considered a sex offender is because I committed an offense that triggers registration. In any other context, my crime would never be considered a sex offense, and I would not be considered a threat to society. -Trent B., a Pennsylvania registrant convicted of streaking Conclusion: Pennsylvania law does not require registeration for streaking. The remainder of the page discusses Pennsylvania law; however, the "Conclusion" is based on the false premise that Pennsylvania law was the law under which "Trent B." was originally convicted. Most states require that offenders who move to that state register themselves if they committed an offense that is a registerable offense in another state. Because of the false premise, this page should also be ignored. While HRW may have erred in publishing an unverifiable E-mail in their report, it is used in an anecdotal context in the report rather than as a qualified source from which conclusions can be drawn. The decision by FAMILYWATCHDOG.US to cherry-pick this particular item and ignore the information surrounding it is a classic illogical argument that is loved by those who cannot back their opinions otherwise.

(page 31) The overwhelming majority, 98.6 percent, were one-time offenders, that is, their only sex offense was the one for which they were currently required to register. Conclusion: 27.3% (3,586) of North Carolina's 13,104 registered sex offenders were convicted of multiple charges. Background: HRW reviewed 500 of 10,000 offenders in one state to arrive at its conclusion that only 1.4% of offenders had multiple convictions. We analyzed registry convictions data for ALL 13,104 offenders in North Carolina. 3,586 offenders were convicted of multiple charges. Source: http://www.ncfindoffender.com Unfortunately, FAMILYWATCHDOG.US fails to distinguish between "counts" and "charges." On top of that, this argument they are presenting does not really have anything to do with either sexual offense recidivism OR the theoretical "stranger danger." Yet more fluff to pad out the page and engage in subtle manipulation, rather than argue the points presented. When will they post something RELEVANT?

(page 32) Among the 13 registered sex offenders in our sample who were under 18 at the time of conviction, six were registered for indecent liberties with a minor, and four were convicted of second degree rape (rape not involving the use of a weapon). Conclusion: The report fails to state that 30% of NC youthful offender have multiple convictions. 30% of young offenders had multiple convictions. The original context of the HRW study (and this is the first time I've had to actually read part of the study to refute FAMILYWATCHDOG.US claims!) says: "Human Rights Watch did a case study of North Carolina to determine how many of the offenders on its online sex offender registry had been convicted of another sex offense after they were released from prison into the community, and the kinds of crimes for which the registrants were required to register." FAMILYWATCHDOG.US does not distinguish between "multiple convictions" and "multiple sexual offense convictions." This is another "straw man fallacy" and once again, they have produced a page of irrelevant information that ignores the context of the report, and therefore should be ignored.

(page 73) These exceptions still leave many teenagers at risk of being labeled as sex offenders for engaging in sexual conduct that is legal for adults. (The title of this argument was "We just don't even understand this statement.") Conclusion: ??? Background: No state law holds that a sexual offense commited by a teenager is illegal while the same act committed by an adult is legal. Read the HRW page and you'll easily understand what FAMILYWATCHDOG.US "doesn't even understand." Look up Genarlow Wilson, a teen who engaged in consensual oral sex with another teen--which, while legal for adults 18 or over, was considered "aggravated child molestation" if performed on ANYONE under 18 in Georgia, regardless of the age of the other person involved, with stiff penalties. THAT is what HRW is talking about, and FAMILYWATCHDOG.US didn't get it.

FAMILYWATCHDOG.US has been exposed. They do not care about the facts. Do you care about the facts? Your children are at stake; who will you trust? The group that presents the facts, or the group that makes false arguments and distractions as to why those facts are not really true?

Questions? Comments? E-mail the Offender and let him know what you think!

[ Main Page ]