On Oct 14, 7:02 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
> "Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message
>
> news:f83e960c-e702-491e-b0f6-c71e65754cdb@y71g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 13, 9:51 pm, "mert1639"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Cynic"  wrote in message
>
> >news:o346f4pj98d6m01oijbv27dtmvf2d53n3o@4ax.com...> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008
> > 18:10:35 퍝, "mert1639"
> > >  wrote:
>
> > >>I'd have thought he'd learnt his lesson about where to keep his hands> > >>but
> > >>sex offenders never change.
>
> > > Sex offenders have a very low re-offending rate compaed to almost all
> > > other types of criminal. But don't let facts get in the way of your
> > > misconceptions.
>
> > I very much doubt that. Are you a sex offender yourself, as you seem to be
> > very keen on defending them?
>
> Sexual offending has the lowest reconviction rate of any crime (about
> 15-19%, in the UK, and lower than that for most sexual offences, UK
> and elsewhere).
>
> Recidivism and reoffending are different things, and are more
> difficult to quantify. But, of course, except for the most serious
> crimes (where one is indefinitely incarcerated i.e. murder, which are
> small in number), this applies to all crimes and so the overall
> percentages would be little changed.
>
> WM
> One could argue that repffending rates are so low beacuse of the long
> periods in custody for the most serious offences.  If the person is in jail
> for 5-10 years a time they can't commit that many more times.

I covered that. Most sexual offences are not 'serious', in a
sentencing sense (until the IPP was introduced, and that is now under
criticism for being given, incorrectly, by the courts.).

However, statistically, your point is incorrect. It is not about the
absolute number of offences, it is about the rate. There are always
fresh sexual offenders, making up for those incarcerated, until they
are released, at which time, they reoffend less than any other
criminal.

WM