PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT. Our own Aeronmelon is going through some shit at the moment and could use some help. Check it out here and consider an upvote or a comment to push it into activity. Sorry, not something I do often or will be spamming. But I care about my friend and if I can get a couple more eyes on his situation then I’m going to try to do what I can. (Last one I promise. Just twice. Not going to spam but dude is a big part of the Lemmy community, especially with Trek, and he deserves the help. And to the mods, if this doesn’t fit and you want to remove? Go for it. I completely understand it and I am sorry)

Edit: Oh wait I’m the mod here. Well, I say it is fine

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    2·
    10 days ago

    The key word here is predator.

    Not much of one. Is there a reliable scientific definition for it & is there good quality scientific research supporting your claim that isn’t outdated?

    If your definition of predator is tautological (eg, those highly likely to reoffend), then why limit your argument to only sexual predators?

    As pointed out by the comprehensive overview linked before, a problem with your claim is that there is no static & fixed propensity to reoffend even when narrowed by type of offense. The idea of a static & fixed propensity first began to unravel when researchers noticed risk to reoffend vary with offender age

    The first was the issue of offender age—the idea that risk of sexual recidivism is age dependent had been overlooked in previous research (e.g., Barbaree et al., 2003), and work in this area became something of a precursor to the ideas and research that followed (e.g., Lussier & Healey, 2009).

    Then they noticed rates vary by their developmental periods

    Examining recidivism rates across developmental periods raised clear challenges to the idea of a static propensity to offend for all offenders.

    Examining dynamic aspects of human lives led researchers to reconsider

    whether a person’s level of risk remains stable over time (e.g., whether a high-risk offender always remains at a high risk to reoffend) (e.g., Thornton et al., 2021).

    The field of correctional psychology stressed the importance of dynamic risk factors responsible for criminal recidivism (e.g., Hanson & Harris, 2000), and developmental and life-course researchers emphasized the dynamic aspects of offending (e.g., Lussier et al., 2021a). Central to the paradigm shift is the idea that the risk of sexual reoffending is more dynamic than previously thought: it can change over time and across developmental stages and can fluctuate according to life circumstances.

    Newer research finds these dynamic risk factors affect the rate of sexual recidivism, which can reach quite low, so it isn’t simply a fixed, static rate.

    Predicting who will be a sexual recidivist (if that concept is scientific valid) isn’t straightforward, so a tautological definition of predator doesn’t get us far.