Following from last blog (110) and the last Psychology blog (105): I received a regular newsletter from SAFARI (Supporting All Falsely Accused with Reference Material). The most recent one (Issue 117, August 2017) raised some interesting points regarding the MOJ, s study into the efficacy of the SOPT. They say:
“Contrary to popular belief, sex offenders have one of the lowest statistical rates of
They go on to explain ‘sampling bias’ and then make this points:
“The conclusion that “people who have completed the SOPT were more likely to
re-offend” is almost as absurd as the statement that “people treated for cancer are more likely to die of cancer.” Of course they are; people who do not have cancer are unlikely to be treated for it and equally unlikely to die from it… The only people who are eligible (“suitable”) to attend SOPT in the first place were those who were guilty and admitted it … The falsely accused innocent, were excluded.” [That is, those who were found legally guilty but were factually innocent, i.e wrongfully convicted.]
“This study actually shows that those who maintained their innocence throughout … were much less likely to offend than those who guilty and admitted it.” [ Although, prison psychologists would have you believe the opposite.]
“The suggestions as to why those who attended the SOPT were more likely to offend do not, apparently, include the possibility that those who didn’t (and couldn’t) attend it were innocent in the first place.”
“The conclusion of this study was that … the group which included innocent people in it were less likely to re-offend than the group which included the guilty. Well, really, Sherlock? Who’d have guessed?” [Nice bit of irreverence.]
Check out the full article at http:/ / safari-uk.org.
Be happy, be safe.
Graham Coutts, 19th August 2017