>> You write: “Leaving aside the documented fact that most sex offenders will re-offend and rehabilitation is a waste of time, what could these people be thinking?”
>>
The change in labeling language seems pointless. So on that we agree.
But the article you cite in the language quoted above actually says the opposite of what you cite it for. I did some machine learning analysis of recidivism for offenses other than sex offenders a while back. So I actually read your article with some interest.
Regarding recidivism, I was surprised by these data in the article.
“While there are no recent, official statistics on national sex-offender recidivism, an overview of studies looking at the numbers in Connecticut, Alaska, Delaware, Iowa and South Carolina found that the rate is about 3.5% for sex offenders. That figure takes into account all crimes, including parole violations, not just sex crimes.”
By way of contrast, about 2/3 of jailed criminals will be rearrested within two years of release — that’s a 66% recidivism rate. (see https://harvardpolitics.com/recidivism-american-progress/ regarding the 2/3 figure). So sex offenders are much less likely to reoffend than the average incarcerated person.
Regarding the effect of therapy, the article you cited also suggests the opposite of what you cite it for. Here is the article:
“In 2010, research published in the American Journal of Public Health suggested that strict laws about registration, surveillance and residency can create a feeling of hopelessness and isolation that can actually facilitate re-offense. Several studies show that rehabilitative therapy, when paired with legal measures, can give offenders a sense of hope and progress and reduce recidivism rates by as much as 22%.”
So, bottom line- you agree with the change of word usage and calling them “sex offenders” is counter productive?
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I guess you believed the polls before Trump's election, too.