i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Cha Ching.
I think you hit the actual important thing on the head. There is a difference between law and what is morally good. There is a difference between the court of law and court of public opinion. The court of law is all about technicalities and that is what matters. What is moral and what the courts can deal with are two different things. The court of public opinion is something where emotion, opinions and other aspects of truth can come out.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Just Fine:
Thank you for acknowledging that, and I am sorry if I came off as not acknowledging your personal opinions before. You are exactly correct, we can interpret facts differently and like you said there is no reason to avoid the facts. You see it one way and I see it differently. That is not always the case on here, you have to admit that though, there are people on here who don't care what facts are being presented, they just want to steamroll over the facts and not even acknowledge them and discuss them. They just feel that they are right no matter what is presented and that other people who has a differing opinion is wrong immediately because they disagree with them.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
No I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Though what I do expect people to do is accept what is considered facts when facts are presented to them. Again, you can interpret those facts however you want to. But just dismissing the facts because they don't agree with your opinion is wrong. You have to at least acknowledge those facts, many people here don't want to acknowledge the facts because it doesn't agree with their opinion. I have to give you credit just fine, you at least will look at facts that you may not agree with, you don't dismiss them right off the bat as being false or a lie, you may not agree with the way that it was gathered or how other people interpret them, but you at least acknowledge those facts as being real.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Well Just Fine, that is your right to have your opinion. The scientific America article talks about how researchers have debunked that opinion but it is certainly your opinion, and I am sure that no one is going to change it.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Registration is not the same as supervision. Registration is so that both the public and police, if needed, knows where the person lives. Parole or probation is active supervision of an individual. Active supervision, for example by a parole officer. They actively work with an individual to ensure that they do not violate a term of their release. That is why a person on parole can be sent back to jail immediately for a parole violation, without the due process that is afforded other people who is suspected of committing a crime. They can be detained as long as the law prescribes because technically they are still supposed to be in jail, but they were released early and are subject to the rules that are set out in their parole conditions. If a sex offender who has fulfilled their parole or probation is suspected of a crime they are still due the same due process that any other suspect and either has to be charged or released within a certain period of time.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
The average sentence imposed on the 9,700 sex offenders was 8 years and, on average, 3 1/2 years of those 8 years were actually served prior to release. The average sentence imposed on the 4,300 child molesters was approximately 7 years and, on average, child molesters were released after serving 3 of the 7 years.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
Parole or probation is only imposed on people who have not fully served out their time and is released early With the average of 4 to 4.5 years of early release, government supervision is only required for those years that remain on their sentence. Registration of a sex offender is not necessarily considered part of the parole or probation as, individuals who are released following serving their full term in prison is still required to register. They can be arrested for not following the registration requirement but they are no longer on parole and therefore cannot be sent back to jail for a parole violation.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years. The figures are clearly out of alignment with the public’s more dire expectations.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/
Of the released sex offenders, 3.5 percent were reconvicted for a sex crime within the 3-year follow-up period, 24 percent were reconvicted for any new offense and 38.6 percent were returned to prison, either because they received another prison sentence or because of a parole violation.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
dubstepped. And I gave you my opinion that there are elders who do stupid things but that is not the policy of Watchtower. I believe that they don't want anyone to prevent another person from reporting it, but does it does happen. But to think that a group of people will enact either a written or an unwritten rule to prevent someone from reporting a crime is insane. I have read on here so many times that people think that lawyers are running the organization because all they care about is the money. No first year law student would ever allow either a written or unwritten policy for something like this. Also my contention is it is not the responsibility to know what every member does and stop them from committing crimes. I also don't feel that they should be held liable for those crimes that someone else commits.
i have been doing research on the arc as some people on here have suggested.
i find it interesting on the case file analysis some of the findings.
it looks like queensland and new south wales had the biggest problems with this.
Actually no Just Fine. The DOJ report says that 12-24% of all convicted sex offenders either still on some form of supervised release or not will reoffend.
