Watchdog story on sex offenders challenged
More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks.
For example, the law doesn't specify whether residence restrictions apply to all convicted sex offenders or only to those who were convicted or paroled after it passed.
How does any journalist do that? How do you base an entire story off one statistic that you simultaneously undercut by admitting there's actually a question as to whom the law--your sole basis for that statistic--applies? That's a feat I've never seen accomplished as well as the Watchdog did with this piece.
What resulted was a muddled and misleading piece that was unabashedly picked up by other outlets across the country without as much as a single question as to its veracity. Lorie Hearn, the Watchdog's editor, defends the piece by saying there's "confusion" about the law. There is, and a spokesman for the UT, which published the story, says the same thing. They point out that the story noted that confusion.
So, and this is where I'm really, really dumfounded -- with all that confusion, how do you ethically, morally, accurately, journalistically make a claim like this: "More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks."
You don't. You can't. And what's scary is that no one at the Watchdog or at the UT seems capable of saying, hey, wait, our story doesn't really make sense. On one hand, we're going to be real bold and grab headlines and say 70 percent of sex offenders are committing crimes just by virtue of where they live, but then on the other hand we're going to spend how many ever x column inches telling our readers that, well, actually, the law is too vague and no one really knows how it should currently be enforced or if that 70 percent statistic is really accurate.
Except, that's not true either. In a week, Citybeat associate editor Kelly Davis got this from the people actually charged with enforcing the residency law:
The exact number of county sex offenders subject to the law changes almost daily, but on Dec. 3--when CityBeat asked for a count--that number was 434 (1,297 fewer than the Watchdog Institute reported). Jerome Marsh, a spokesperson with adult parole operations, the arm of CDCR responsible for enforcing Jessica's Law, said that all 434 are monitored by GPS devices--another provision of Jessica's Law--and are in compliance with the law.You don't see that in the Watchdog story. This is someone in authority challenging the story's thesis, its lead, ist main thrust yet, and this is flabbergasting, they stand by their conclusions. As one that UT spokesperson said on Twitter: "In my opinion, this is another example of picking just to pick. The story notes the issues @sdcitybeat raises" and later "the issue is closed."
Could this have been a good story? Yeah, if it were done properly. Could they salvage what little respect they had from area journalists (outside the UT, that is), by honestly examining the challenges made to their story? Yes. Will they? Well, "the issue is closed," according to the UT. We'll see what the Watchdog Institute does.
(FYI: I've written for San Diego Citybeat on more than one occasion, I've not written for the Union Tribune or the Watchdog Institute and its no secret that I've taken issues with things the UT's leadership has said about me)
Justin,
The issues CityBeat has brought up appear to have been considered by the Watchdog Institute and its reporters. CityBeat's article appears to highlight a difference in interpretation of the law and how it is applied, but that doesn't mean the institute's article is untrue.
Voters passed a law in 2006 that says registered sex offenders cannot live in certain areas. Three years later, despite the law OK'd by voters, it appears about 70 percent of San Diego County's registered sex offenders live in areas the law says they cannot live. In the story, the reporters wrote the law is "nearly impossible to enforce." CityBeat appears to take the position that convicted sex offenders cannot violate a law that it says doesn't apply to them.
Which interpretation of the facts is correct? I'll leave that up to readers. You've already read CityBeat's critique, now please read the institute's report: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/nov/29/...
A final note: The U-T and the Watchdog Institute are partners. The institute was not started by the U-T nor is it part of the U-T. It is run by a former U-T reporter, who quit her job to start the institute. The U-T provided startup money, becoming the lead partner. The newspaper has never hidden the relationship. For more information, please visit: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4819
Rob Hopwood
Social Media Specialist
The San Diego Union-Tribune and SignOnSanDiego.com
I know your job is to defend the UT, but your fast losing credibility with me on this.
Where in the story does this appear?
"it appears about 70 percent of San Diego County's registered sex offenders live in areas the law says they cannot live"
No where. The story actually says that 70 percent of sex offenders ARE violating the law. That's sloppy, at best.
"In the story, the reporters wrote the law is "nearly impossible to enforce."
Exactly. And the people responsible for enforcing say that's not true. Where was that in the story?
This isn't about interpretation. It's about standard journalistic practice. The Watchdog Institute got it wrong. Refusing to even consider that, well, that says a lot about the character of the organization and of the partners who run its stories.
Justin,
I'm an employee of the Union-Tribune. Every time I commented about this article I identified who I was because it would have been unethical for me not to have done that. However, I am not a spokesman for the company. The twitter post you quote where I said "the issue is closed" was posted on my personal Twitter account, and referred to the debate over the polite rebuttal I posted in the comments at the end of CityBeat's article. I was not going to engage in an endless argument over a polite rebuttal to what CityBeat wrote.
Rob Hopwood
Social Media Specialist
The San Diego Union-Tribune and SignOnSanDiego.com
Justin,
It appears you cannot accept that people can look at the same facts, the same law and draw different conclusions. Also, it appears you cannot accept a polite rebuttal to a story. This is why I said "the issue is closed" on Twitter. I don't have time to endlessly debate this with you or anyone else. I've identified myself, and then stated my opinion on this matter. If you have any more problems with this story please contact the Watchdog Institute and take it up with them.
"It appears you cannot accept that people can look at the same facts, the same law and draw different conclusions."
Sure they can. But if you're a journalist, and the conclusion is unsupportable, wrong, inaccurate, misleading, well that's a big problem.
But, this isn't about drawing a conclusion. This is a statement of fact: "More than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County are violating a state law by living too close to schools and parks."
That fact, currently, is wrong.
Here's how it so easily could've worked.
"Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, more than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County might suddenly be in violation of a state law by living too close to schools and parks."
You have to see the difference. Any journalism student can see the difference. But the right way wouldn't have been as sensational, would it?
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com
http://soissues.d2g.com/articles.html
I am totally against ANY form of abuse to any human being. And I believe anyone who murders another human being should be in prison for the rest of their life (until they die). I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone. Also, I believe that once a person has been in and out of prison and has served their probation and parole, done everything required of them, and what was signed on the "contract" when they took the plea, none of this should be required of them, none of it. The state cannot tear up a contract like this, which they are basically doing, it's unconstitutional. Many people, if they had known they would be faced with all this, they would have NOT taken a plea deal. And the courts are very aware of this and this is why they made it retroactive; thus violating ex-post facto laws! They should be allowed to get on with their life as if nothing happened. I'm not saying for it to be removed from their record, but, the crime should be removed from public view and background checks, they should not have any more restrictions, shaming, etc. If they commit another crime, then they face a lot more punishment, like everything else is treated.
When are we going to move away from being "TOUGH ON CRIME" and move to being "SMART ON CRIME?" If you locked every single sex offender up, at this moment, or killed every one of them, do you think the problem is over? No, more will follow.
I've heard many people say "If these laws protect one child, then they are worth it!" And at the same time, if millions are tortured, it's ok. Offenders are losing their homes, jobs, families, and children and cannot find new jobs or homes due to the insanity of these laws. The families are also made into outcasts for associating with or being related to an ex-offender and their own children are harassed and bullied at schools due to a family member being an ex-offender.
I know these laws are a sensitive issue, but as all issues, they must be discussed and we must come up with a valid solution that will work. The laws, as they exist now, DO NOT WORK! People are always saying they cause unintended consequences. These laws have been on the books for years now, so nothing is unintended anymore. When are we going to set aside fear, hate, rage and anger and come up with a real solution? History has proven that these feelings NEVER get good laws passed but only create bad ones that punish and torture many people. These knee-jerk reactions to a slim number of high-profile crimes, like Adam Walsh and Jessica Lunsford, MUST STOP!
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidi...
Recidivism
* Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
* The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.
* Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.
* Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.
* Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.
Sex offenders
* On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
* The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.
* An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.
* Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release.
* Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge.
Child victimizers
* Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison.
* Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.
* Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.