In People v. Poe (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 826, it was argued the resultant probabilities of reoffending were insufficient as a matter of law: "Appellant nevertheless argues that the court's finding that he was likely to reoffend is not supported by the opinions of the two experts, because both experts reported that, using the RRASOR scale, the risk that he would engage in such behavior over the next 10 years was 48.6 percent. Appellant argues that, as a matter of law, any percentage under 50 percent is not 'likely.' It is unnecessary to engage in a debate about what minimum percent risk using this scale would support the conclusion that it is likely that person will reoffend, because all the experts who testified . . . agreed that the numerical results of this scale should not be used in isolation when assessing the likelihood of reoffending. One expert explained that the RRASOR evaluation 'doesn't consider a wealth of other information which has been shown to correlate with reoffense.' for example, it does not consider whether the offender has any insight into his past behavior, or whether he had any empathy for his victims . . . ." ( People v. Poe, supra, 74 Cal. App. 4th at p. 830.) In People v. Poe (1999) the court found it "unnecessary to engage in a debate about what minimum percent risk using the RRASOR scale would support the conclusion that it is likely that person will reoffend, because all the experts who testified . . . agreed that the numerical results of this scale should not be used in isolation when assessing the likelihood of reoffending. One expert explained that the RRASOR evaluation 'doesn't consider a wealth of other information which has been shown to correlate with reoffense.' For example, it does not consider whether the offender has any insight into his past behavior, or whether he had any empathy for his victims, his coping mechanisms, his work skills, or his drug addiction. The experts agreed that the proper application of the RRASOR was an 'adjusted actuarial approach,' in which the RRASOR actuarial data, is used as a base, that is adjusted by assessing and weighing appropriate clinical factors. Using this approach, both experts concluded that the risk of appellant reoffending was higher than 50 percent." ( Id. at p. 831.)