Comments on: CAAF issues opinion on testimony regarding risk of recidivism http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/ Covering the Military Justice System Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:34:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bill Herrick http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12394 Bill Herrick Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:10:30 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12394 These kind of issues are driven by TC who have too often seen unreasonably low sentences from members (and MJ) for serious sexual offenses. I commend Colin Kisor's article in the Naval Law review as a cogent analysis of the need for reform. Then perhaps TC won't feel they have to explain the obvious - that child predators predate. These kind of issues are driven by TC who have too often seen unreasonably low sentences from members (and MJ) for serious sexual offenses. I commend Colin Kisor’s article in the Naval Law review as a cogent analysis of the need for reform. Then perhaps TC won’t feel they have to explain the obvious – that child predators predate.

]]> By: any mouse http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12353 any mouse Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:47:12 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12353 I was an engineer in undergrad, but the years away from statistics may have had its toll and I could be solving this the wrong way. The way I see it, if there is only a 70% rate of predictive validity and he is in the 38% recidivism category, that means there is a 26.6% (.7*.38) chance he will be a repeat offender. Compare this to the 30% rate of predictive invalidity and it seems like the chance that the Static 99 is wrong is greater than the chance of him being a repeat offender. I was an engineer in undergrad, but the years away from statistics may have had its toll and I could be solving this the wrong way. The way I see it, if there is only a 70% rate of predictive validity and he is in the 38% recidivism category, that means there is a 26.6% (.7*.38) chance he will be a repeat offender. Compare this to the 30% rate of predictive invalidity and it seems like the chance that the Static 99 is wrong is greater than the chance of him being a repeat offender.

]]> By: tdc http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12352 tdc Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:17:39 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12352 Methinks Baker is right that a competent TDC (or ADC) could tear this to shreds. Methinks Baker is right that a competent TDC (or ADC) could tear this to shreds.

]]> By: Westerner http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12348 Westerner Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:43:48 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12348 Anon1033, my sentiments indeed. What Quakery these courts give credence to. Anon1033, my sentiments indeed.

What Quakery these courts give credence to.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12346 Anonymous Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:33:53 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12346 So the government expert has a tool that will tell the judge whether the defendant will likely re-offend in the future? Fantastic. Better idea: Let's determine the likelihood of recidivism by consulting the "precogs" from Minority Report. So the government expert has a tool that will tell the judge whether the defendant will likely re-offend in the future? Fantastic. Better idea: Let’s determine the likelihood of recidivism by consulting the “precogs” from Minority Report.

]]> By: Middle School Bus Driver http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12343 Middle School Bus Driver Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:14:39 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12343 Westerner, Damn straight. If you are to be branded by past crimes, other than the risk of future imprisonment, you may as well keep doing it. Westerner,

Damn straight. If you are to be branded by past crimes, other than the risk of future imprisonment, you may as well keep doing it.

]]> By: Westerner http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12340 Westerner Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:51:49 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12340 Predicting future behavior static 99 or otherwise is simply quakery. None of these so call experts can say with any certainty one would re-offend in any event, I believe the pendulum needs to start swinging away from "possibility" as a yardstick for stiffer sentences its unAMerican and the courts have tolerarted this for too long. Its no secret sex offenders have to continue to live with the consequences of their conviction no matter their sentences, Which I believe is a travesty in itself whats the incentive to reform if you are going to branded no matter what? Predicting future behavior static 99 or otherwise is simply quakery.

None of these so call experts can say with any certainty one would re-offend in any event, I believe the pendulum needs to start swinging away from “possibility” as a yardstick for stiffer sentences its unAMerican and the courts have tolerarted this for too long.

Its no secret sex offenders have to continue to live with the consequences of their conviction no matter their sentences, Which I believe is a travesty in itself whats the incentive to reform if you are going to branded no matter what?

]]> By: Phil Cave http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12339 Phil Cave Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:00:40 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12339 The defense should already have been doing this. The problem with this case is that the expert's foundation is insufficient. It is the ongoing debate about Static-99 and the other similar tests that makes this experts opinion potentially bogus in my mind. The failure to conduct a proper and complete evaluation causes me to agree with Judge Baker. Here the prosecution used a formulaic approach, rather than a legitimate approach used in the community of sexual offender treatment providers. I regularly use psycho-sexual evaluations in child porn and child sex cases. Static-99 is only one of the "tools" to making a recidivism judgement. The nature of the offenses is important. A guilty plea is a factor in favor in evaluating the meaning of the Static-99. However, the most important elements of a recommendation are missing in this case. Psychometric testing beyond Static-99, a polygraph, a full and complete personal interview(s) and history, and interviews with family. Here's a link to one of the several exhibits I attach to my motions for a psycho-sexual evaluation and expert assistance, it should give you a flavor of what's really required. http://socb.idaho.gov/Misc%20PDF%20files/Psychosexual%20eval%20standard%20outline.pdf This format is used in Idaho. Many states and the U.S. District Courts have psycho-sexual evaluations mandated by law or policy as part of the pre-sentence reports conducted on convicted sexual offenders. Note, there are many being treated in the community while on probation. Limiting rehabilitation to "Canon Air Force Base" is artificial and misleading. There are very good treatment providers in the local community. So this expert should have been required to address the locally available programs, not limit to an artificial place unlikely to have any program. Also, doesn't such a limitation violate R.C.M. 1001. Isn't rehabilitative potential supposed to be in society in general, not just Canon AFB? Seems to me the prosecution got away with a recommendation that the person had no rehabilitative potential in the military, thus an implied recommendation for a BCD? The defense should already have been doing this.
The problem with this case is that the expert’s foundation is insufficient. It is the ongoing debate about Static-99 and the other similar tests that makes this experts opinion potentially bogus in my mind. The failure to conduct a proper and complete evaluation causes me to agree with Judge Baker. Here the prosecution used a formulaic approach, rather than a legitimate approach used in the community of sexual offender treatment providers.
I regularly use psycho-sexual evaluations in child porn and child sex cases.
Static-99 is only one of the “tools” to making a recidivism judgement. The nature of the offenses is important. A guilty plea is a factor in favor in evaluating the meaning of the Static-99. However, the most important elements of a recommendation are missing in this case. Psychometric testing beyond Static-99, a polygraph, a full and complete personal interview(s) and history, and interviews with family.
Here’s a link to one of the several exhibits I attach to my motions for a psycho-sexual evaluation and expert assistance, it should give you a flavor of what’s really required.
http://socb.idaho.gov/Misc%20PDF%20files/Psychosexual%20eval%20standard%20outline.pdf

This format is used in Idaho. Many states and the U.S. District Courts have psycho-sexual evaluations mandated by law or policy as part of the pre-sentence reports conducted on convicted sexual offenders.
Note, there are many being treated in the community while on probation. Limiting rehabilitation to “Canon Air Force Base” is artificial and misleading. There are very good treatment providers in the local community. So this expert should have been required to address the locally available programs, not limit to an artificial place unlikely to have any program. Also, doesn’t such a limitation violate R.C.M. 1001. Isn’t rehabilitative potential supposed to be in society in general, not just Canon AFB? Seems to me the prosecution got away with a recommendation that the person had no rehabilitative potential in the military, thus an implied recommendation for a BCD?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.caaflog.com/2010/02/23/caaf-issues-opinion-on-testimony-regard-risk-of-recidivism/comment-page-1/#comment-12338 Anonymous Wed, 24 Feb 2010 01:03:53 +0000 http://www.caaflog.com/?p=4762#comment-12338 The government should be careful what it wishes for - if I were the defense bar this should be a greenlight to request an expert witness (or at least assistance) on recidivism rates in every sexual abuse case. This is dangerous and highly influential testimony that is rife for abuse and manipulation from partial government and defense expert witnesses. The government should be careful what it wishes for – if I were the defense bar this should be a greenlight to request an expert witness (or at least assistance) on recidivism rates in every sexual abuse case. This is dangerous and highly influential testimony that is rife for abuse and manipulation from partial government and defense expert witnesses.

]]>