Arizona sex offenders are considered lower risk if their victim was a girl.

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

Female victims add zero to the score, male victims add 3 points.
Questions #8 and #13 are interesting.

Here's a few pages of evaluation questions and the last image will be of scoring and categories.

The full 19-question questionnaire is at the link, and this is for Arizona, I don't know about other states.

Sex Offense Risk-S
General Recidivism Risk-G

He's a convicted sex offender, but the public wouldn't know that. Here's why

If the victim is a girl, a sex offender gets zero points in their risk assessment. If it's a boy, the offender gets three points.

www.12news.com

 

[DamagedGoods]

Uhhh... what actual science/evidence do they base their criteria on?? Girl victims = less likely to rape again? How when the majority of child victims are girls?? What is the logic used for this assessment?

 

[sgr1966]

Disgusting

 

[Turd Fergusen]

Umm..? Is this one of those things where we are supposed to be "trusting the science"?

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

Uhhh... what actual science/evidence do they base their criteria on?? Girl victims = less likely to rape again? How when the majority of child victims are girls?? What is the logic used for this assessment?

The "logic" is flawed. It's based on known historical recidivism rates:

"Recidivism is defined as being “arrested, charged, convicted, or incarcerated for a new [sex] offense.”

Couple that with-

"An average child molester will offend 200–400 times before being caught, if ever.
The vast majority of offenders do not get caught, and they have no criminal records.
According to the FBI, only one out of ten cases of child sexual abuse is reported to law enforcement."

-and we end up with guesses, hoping for the best, and understaffed or underallocated parole departments vulnerable to the necessity of accepting erroneous risk assessments.

blegh.

 

[thuumpr]

Is there a grade for gender of suspect?

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

Is there a grade for gender of suspect?

It says in the fine print above the question:
" If offender is female, do not reverse genders."
But other than that, no reference is made.



ETA: I found some information in California's website

I can see why they try to chip away at the charges and make plea agreements because a couple of points can make a huge difference in their future.

 

[cubby]

The way I read it, girls don't count, whether it's male on female or female on female. The score for victimizing girls is a big fat ZERO.

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

The way I read it, girls don't count, whether it's male on female or female on female. The score for victimizing girls is a big fat ZERO.

This, plus the notion that selecting a male to victimize must be a deviant notion that springs fŕom the perpetrators own evil mind, but selecting a female victim?
--Well, that's not abnormal at all! That was just because she tempted the perpetrator, as females are wont to do! We scolded the perp, now they know, and they know to guard against these temptresses from here on out! You can reason with these types, their natural urges just got the better of them this one time, but victimizing a male? You can't reason with that kind of depravity, sickness, predatory nature and sinfulness!


It shows a shocking ignorance of how a sexual predator's mind works and gives a wink and a nudge to those with female victims, and by lowering their score, allows them more opportunity to abuse females again. Endless cycle.
Because, as you said @cubby, they don't count.

(And it's partially their fault anyway. )

Women are supposed to guard chastity and purity, that's their role in society.

But really, chastity and purity aren't about refraining from sex, they're about refraining from sex until someone else tells you that you can have sex under these conditions, with this person.

I wonder how often a rapist says to a male victim "You know you want it"?