In 1994 there was a singular high profile sex crime, committed by a previously convicted sex offender. Recidivism! A like-type-crime, a sex offense following a previous sex offense! That is what comes to mind whenever the word recidivism is used in relationship to a sex offender. Committing another sex offense!

Truthfully, that is what sex offender recidivism should mean, however, that is not the meaning when speakers, the media, politicians, and professionals quote sex offender recidivism rates! The meaning is altered by the process that created the recidivism statistic! Most folks never realize this, and often speakers don't realize it either.

Researchers and statisticians have a purpose for creating a statistic, and choose a process suitable for their purpose. However, suitable for research does not automatically translate into a statistic that is understood by the community at large (the average person).

Sex offender recidivism statistics require "Disclosure Statements." Like labels on cans of food disclose the contents in detail, 12% of this and 28% of that, etc. Without this disclosure statement, sex offender recidivism statistics incite unnecessary fears in the community!

Throughout history communities have been "fear stricken" based upon race, nationality, religion, disability, and many other factors. Yet, those fears disappeared when that community got to know the person they initially feared. Fears are dispelled when placed into proper perspective, and when there is knowledge and understanding.

Our research is effectively, the "Disclosure Statement" that no one tells you about. We explain the statistics you are hearing about, putting them into a proper perspective, and give you the knowledge needed to understand and question what you hear spoken so broadly.

Report are, sex offenders have high rates of recidivism (without explanation)! We asked, if high, are they high because of "committing another sex offense," or are they high because of "the process that creates the statistic?" In other words, could there be something inherent in the process that could cause the final statistic to be high, and if high, is that normal for that process? Are reported recidivism rates for sex offenders really high, or is the truth being masked by the process creating the statistic?

Courts have reviewed a few of these statistical systems, in general. However, in the legal community, if a system is in general use, then it is an accepted scientific practice, and therefore admissible in court. Hence, whatever result is provided by the system (i.e., recidivism rates, result warrants commitment, or likelihood of re-offense [low-medium-high], etc.), courts accept it without question. (Ex: Nov 2001:Arizona Court of Appeals; Dec 2002: Illinois Court of Appeals; Oct 2002 Case-1: Oct 2002 Case-2: Iowa Court of Appeals.)

No court has ever reviewed the process of how a system creates a statistic, to see if the system's result could be artifically high and create a false impression! That is the precise reason why, reported sex offender recidivism rates are high. Courts and legislatures have made decisions and enacted laws based upon these false impressions.

Beyond our research is a general belief that, many sex offenses go unreported which stems from separate victim studies. Here we are not saying these beliefs are incorrect or correct, but that belief has made it virtually impossible to get courts or legislatures to review the problems with the process of generating statistics! We will be reviewing and identifying the problems with the process only.

We are going to review sex offender recidivism statistics generated by
the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and the Mental Health System (MHS) individually.

The purpose and process by which each compiles "Recidivism Statistics" requires distinguishing between the two. So far legislatures and court systems have failed to recognize these distinguishing differences, and this has resulted in a misapplication of, and improper reliance on, reported sex offender recidivism statistics.

Our research revealed each of the systems, CJS system and the MHS system, has inherent problems and idiosyncrasies in the process of calculating recidivism statistics, which causes the recidivism rates to be artificially high. This damages the community and the offenders in society!