ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings
Q4: 11/18 Recording Uploaded, 12/9 in Los Angeles [details]

Other Events
Challenging Parole Conditions: postponed [details]
ACSOL Conference: June 15/16, 2018 in Los Angeles [details]

National

When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court: A ‘Frightening’ Myth About Sex Offenders

[New York Times]

This month the Supreme Court will have a rare opportunity to correct a flawed doctrine that for the past two decades has relied on junk social science to justify punishing more than 800,000 Americans. Two cases that the court could review concern people on the sex offender registry and the kinds of government control that can constitutionally be imposed upon them.

In Snyder v. Doe, the court could consider whether Michigan’s broad scheme of regulating sex offenders constitutes “punishment.” The other case, Karsjens v. Piper, examines the constitutionality of Minnesota’s policy of detaining sex offenders forever — not for what they’ve done, but for what they might do.

Read more and watch the video

Just watch the video

 

Join the discussion

  1. DavidH

    At the conclusion it states that later this year–any time now– the Supreme Court will take up the matter of punishment and the registries–does that mean they’ve agreed to take that 6th circuit case??

    • AJ

      @David H:
      You misread it. Here’s the text: “Later this year the Supreme Court will decide whether to reconsider harsh treatment of people on sex offender registries.” Key phrase: “whether to reconsider.” SCOTUS remains on “summer vacation” until September 25. That is the *earliest* they would vote to accept any cases before them–any, not just Snyder or other RC cases.

    • Follow the $

      I think they are discussing Does v. Snyder in 9/25 conference as all brief and arguments are filed. If Supremes deny appeal of Snyder and don’t take the case the appellate decision stands as precedent but a shaky one that is limited to the 6th circuit. Best case is Supremes take the case and affirm appellate court setting strong national precedent.

      • Robert

        On the other hand, SCOTUS must know the overwhelming data that counters their 2003 ruling and the fact that momentum is rapidly building in the court of public opinion.

      • Bobby

        @follow the $,

        I believe you might be wrong about your statement, I spoke with Fred from NARSOL he says are best bet is that SCOTUS denies Snyder and here is his opinion not mine.

        If they grant the petition, registrants everywhere are in big trouble, because that would indicate that they think the 6th got it wrong. Our hope is that they deny it.
        My opinion is that there are no realistic grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Michigan is operating on the guidelines of the federal Adam Walsh Act that just happened to be challenged in Michigan on these grounds. The lawsuit is this one, and the hopeful outcome is that 1000s of registrants will win their freedom.

        Does anyone else feel the same way as Fred does he is from NARSOL, I am still confused, I guess just wait and see what happens on the 25th.

        • AJ

          @Bobby:
          “If they grant the petition, registrants everywhere are in big trouble, because that would indicate that they think the 6th got it wrong.”
          I have to disagree with what Fred had to say. SCOTUS doesn’t only take cases to overturn a “wrong” by the lower courts. If that were true, there would be no need for oral argument! They could simply say “yes” (indicating reversal) and “no” (indicating affirmation) about each of the cases.

          SCOTUS may take a case to make a statement, to reverse a previous SCOTUS decision (Plessy v Ferguson, overturned by Brown v Board of Education is the classic example), to clarify a constitutional issue (as exists with Snyder), or to resolve conflicting opinions and judgments among the Circuits (as exists with Snyder).

          From the American Bar Association (https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf): “The Supreme Court affirmed over 40% of all cases granted certiorari from the First, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits. In fact, the median affirmance rate is about 31.71%, with only two courts falling below 25%, again, the Ninth and Federal Circuits. If the Supreme Court granted certiorari only to review cases that it intends to reverse or vacate, the affirmance rates should be significantly lower. These statistics indicate that the Court is more likely interested in taking cases to resolve circuit splits, to resolve uncertainty in the law, or to determine important legal or constitutional issues.” That last sentence sums it up nicely.

          I am solidly in the camp that we want SCOTUS to take Snyder, Muniz, and any and all other RC cases currently petitioned.

      • AJ

        @Follow the $:
        If SCOTUS doesn’t take Snyder, they’re merely kicking the can down the road. There are already some conflicting opinions in the Federal Courts, so denying Snyder now just makes the next conflict land back in their laps. I am quite confident they will accept Snyder. Given it takes only 4 Justices for a case to be accepted, that also means if only 3 vote to accept, it gets denied. I challenge anyone to show me how Snyder gets 3, or fewer, votes for acceptance. Breyer and Ginsburg (both dissented in McKune and in Smith) are certainly on our side; Kagan denied the Stay of Snyder, so is seeming to lean our way; Sotomayor is ideologically similar to Kagan; and Kennedy has telegraphed sentiments as the author of the parenthetical in Packingham (which, BTW, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor fully joined). Count ’em, folks…that’s 5! 😀

        Whether Snyder is accepted at the 9/25 conference, or a later one, to try to get Muniz too, IDK.

  2. New Person

    Amazing piece! Just amazing! I’m speechless.

  3. AlexO

    Great video. I love that this information is getting out there. But at the same time, this video makes me incredibly angry that’s it’s revealing whole registry as The Flat Earth Society and people in power are not only willfully ignoring empirical facts, but are trying to layer more and more on top of it. But unlike the The Flat Earth Society who are being mocked for believing in obviously falls information, nearly the entire nation is embracing it and are unwilling to budge in their perception.

    I really hope the ending of the video is true and SCOTUS will really rectify their horrible mistake. How could they not when presented with empirical evidence after all this time?

    • Registry Rage

      The public needs to be reeducated and conditioned to understand that not all sex offenders are guilty by association, risk dynamics and criminogenic needs. The “once a perv, always a perv” nonsense will always exist (just like racism). Lawmakers have created an entirely toxic and dysfunctional safety illusion apparatus that protects NO ONE. The voters have been duped into believing that Megan’s Law will magically prevent future sex offenses, it won’t, but they rely on it to give them a false sense of relief in knowing who lives in their vicinity. The lawmakers will circle the wagon as long as they can!

      • jo

        That is a worthless and frivolous campaign my friend, let’s focus on the legislators. The public in general are for the most part always going to want to string us up and no amount of educating is going to change that.

        • norman

          I agree..The public only cares about what they see on tv (Law and Order SVU, John Walsh, To Catch a Predator, et al.) This is all about our Constitutional rights. Everybody else can go to hell.

  4. AJ

    Wow, what a stunning piece. A couple months back we had the WaPo piece, now this one in the NYT. I know there will still be skeptics among us who won’t believe it until they see it, but these sorts of pieces by major media outlets speaks–nay, shouts–volumes! I’m really feeling confident we will see a major reversal from SCOTUS about all this. I now even hold out hope that they completely strike it all down. AWA, ML, IML. All of it, gone.

    I was stunned when I read this line in the article: “In short, the entire scheme of registration and restriction that the Supreme Court condoned 15 years ago in McKune v. Lile has done enormous violence to a huge number of Americans now branded forever as sex offenders.” Violence. That’s an incredibly strong rebuke of SCOTUS. Not punishment, not harm. Violence. Wow.

    The video is a wonderful piece, as well. Having those involved in the original documentation (Longo, Schwartz) saying it’s all based on nothing can only help our cause. Thank you NYT!

    • New Person

      The reason for that condemnation to me is something that I didn’t know before and astounding… the whole research work the SCOTUS received was “made up”! The clerk who gathered it up stated so as well as pointed out the Psychology Today as evidence it was made up.

      Isn’t this akin to convicting a man and then later finding out that the evidence use was false? The SCOTUS used false information to determine an outcome.

      We needed this video b/c the masses will never believe it.

      I’m still in awe of it.

  5. Gralphr

    What I wonder is can anyone get the people in the video to present themselves to scotus and to repeat everything they said in the video. After all, THEYRE the very people who made up things the court uses in order to deny us our rights. In two months I have the ability to go before a court in my state and request permission to be taken off the registry. As of now, I have zero knowledge of how to present any information for my argument.

    I read the decision in Colorado, but I’m sure I cant use it for my cause just yet. Basically, I’m married with children and have also obtained a Bachelors degree since incarceration. I have been able to get some pretty decent jobs overall (like in California) but my current state (Indiana) is extremely harsh (they also display where you work which in the past has resulted in strangers calling and reporting a person on the registry works there), and my wife wants to eventually move to Georgia.

    The cop that does my registry checks came by one day and we had a chat. He thinks I should go in with the argument that I’ve been offense free for over 10 years and have married, worked jobs, and obtained a degree but the registry is the one thing that is holding me back from being a good citizen AND major contributor to the overall quality of life for my children. Does anyone disagree? I even have copies of background checks from companies that show I was denied only because of the registry. (My conviction doesn’t show up in background checks, but the registry does).

    • Follow the $

      Unfortunately the Supreme Court does not have witnesses. One would hope any briefs filed in support of our cause contain all these facts as it is common opinion that Kennedy is looking for a way out of his initial error which has led to this whole scheme of ex post facto punishment. Too bad it could be another 1-2 years before anything comes of this since their schedule is so spread out and Kennedy might retire by then.

      • AJ

        Anyone filing a brief in the case could quote them and provide the NYT video (or its suspected parent film, “Untouchable”), or a transcript of it, as citation. Maybe the Cato Institute needs a nudge. 🙂

    • Joe123

      Of course you should go for it! You only stand to gain.

    • Paul

      I forwarded this article to all the PA house reps on the Judiciary comity and asked that they read and watch and to please consider all sides before passing new law and to consider holding a hearing.

      • steve

        …and this should be sent to all the people involved in this stupid California tiered scheme.

        • AlexO

          I honestly doubt it would make a difference for the local legislature. Presenting facts to them is like presenting facts to anti-vaxxers and flat earther’s.

          • Paul

            Would be nice if we had a bunch of people to protest at the capitol building to force a hearing on the facts.

          • New Person

            This is so true.

            California has it’s own scientific based research group called CASOMB. The several years, the recidivism rate was around 1%. Since the exclusion of not-registering from re-offense rates, the recidivism rates have dropped to under 1% for two consecutive years.

            CASOMB is just a token item for California to check off, but to never use as a rebut to the registration scheme. Notice the tiered proposal, even in its earliest form, never used science to create it as it uses 10 years, 20 years, and lifetime registrations still. Here’s the irony, they’re using Static-99, create by Dr. Hanson, but don’t use Dr. Hanson’s longest standard of supervision of 17 years.

            California resembles the 2003 Doe v Smith SCOTUS courts – will only use statistics that will further their agenda and omit all other statistics.

            With over 100,000 registrants and less than 1% recidivism rates for the past two years, something doesn’t make sense here at the notion that registrants are a public threat to society.

          • Laura's Husband

            Explain how the Static 99 scam is accurate. Also, explain how “Dr.” Hanson is really a “Dr.”

    • AJ

      @Gralphr:
      I agree, you need to go for it. I’d definitely bring up all that you mentioned. I’d also learn all I can about IN’s (and maybe US DoJ’s) data on RC recidivism, and also would read up on any IN court cases. I don’t know that I’d blast the State with that data–bureaucrats don’t react well to that kind of behavior–but I would certainly have it handy as a talking point.

  6. ReadyToFight

    Being on the Registry is like being a Wanted Criminal trying to integrate with society.

    • Lovecraft

      Spot on analogy!

    • Chris F

      Both are the only times the government puts up pictures and identifying information. Most wanted criminals and sex offenders…

      Thanks to Connecticut DPS V Doe 2003 SCOTUS declared the list just for informational purposes and not declaring any level of dangerousness so it’s ok. Oh, wait…now there are federal and state laws against people on the list doing certain things, so, umm, doesn’t that “infer” a level of dangerousness or is the government just now able to do those things against free citizens for no reason?

      • New Person

        Thankfully, CO judge Matsch identified that the registry is akin to a wanted poster such that it implies someone dangerous lurks here.

        I am so amazed at judge Matsch’s resolve to all this.

      • AJ

        @Chris F:
        “[D]oesn’t that infer a level of dangerousness?”
        You mean like perhaps different tiers?

        • Chris F

          @AJ

          Exactly!

          It doesn’t even just “infer” now. It screams “Run For The Hills! The Sex Offenders are Coming For You and Your Family!”

  7. Bob

    Can this time piece from the NY times be sent to the emails of SCOTUS and their clerks ?

    • Mary

      Been send it out to every email of legislator, authority figures, news media, justices and their court clerks I can find. Any possible digital avenue in media I can find I link it to. You should do the same.

    • David Kennerly

      They almost certainly have it and are aware of it. Most probably read the Times daily and, even if they don’t, their law clerks will put it on the top of their desk.

      HOWEVER, I think that we should ALL print-out the article and MAIL IT to the Supreme Court. We can decide i we should send it to Kennedy, in particular, or to each of the Justices.

      This would be a great way to visibly demonstrate that we are watching them very carefully.

      • AlexO

        They should all have it as they’re all going to need to vote. There’s no reason to exclude anyone.

        • AJ

          @David Kennerly:
          A fine idea. One can reasonably assume they have seen the NYT op-ed, but if it were sent to them, there’s a higher expectation of its being seen–especially if done en masse.

          • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

            Not just of being seen, which I’m sure they already have, but of rubbing their noses in it.

  8. David

    Excellent video.
    (One criticism: the video could have included some images of registrants participating in regular daily activities: such as attending church, enjoying a day at the park with their family [kids included to show that many registrants are also parents], shopping at a grocery store, or working at a job – just normal, everyday activities rather than some of the images used: scary images of men scanning parks or driving around at night, only their eyes showing in the rearview mirror. Those images suggest “predator on the prowl” and they juxtapose – in a negative way – the very argument of the editorial piece.)

    • Tim Moore

      As usual. They still got the beam in their vision they need to pluck out. Why can’t they just show a guy barbecuing with his kids playing in the background, that is more of the rule than the rare exception.

    • AlexO

      I’ll have to watch the video again as I don’t recall these images, or at least didn’t see them that way. What I did see in those night shots was RC’s being homeless as a result. Sleeping on sidewalks and in their cars. IE the consequence of having to register.

    • Ana

      Unfortunately, I think showing them suffering by being homeless and living in tents on the street is much more powerful. If that doesn’t show punishment, I don’t know what else would. Which is what SCOTUS, particularly Kennedy, found to be troubling. Especially after they have finished their sentence.

      If they show them living a normal life with these laws in place, then why even bother?

      I also noticed that almost all of the 8 minute video focused on Florida aka scorched Earth for registrants.

      • Donna

        Florida is the birthplace of modern sex offender laws. I’m surprised they didn’t put shots of Mark Lunsford on there or even Grady Judd. But shots of the Florida capital building, its governer Rick Scott signing more SO scorched Earth laws, Lauren Book spitting her usual non sense, President Bush signing AWA next to Mark Foley and John Walsh of FL, shots of the homeless registrants in Miami, and also of the Florida Senate Chambers. It’s short but a pretty powerful piece with a clear and direct message.

        Speaking of Sheriff Judd. It be sweet to link this video to his Twitter page.

    • Paul

      Or showing a young girl happy at school until the day the staff decides to inform all the parents her dad is a reg SO (who was divorced from her mom and not living with her and never set foot on school property) and a kid asks her is your dad s SO I think that would do the trick.

      • AlexO

        I think this would require a full documentary rather than an 8 minute video. Showing people being homeless as a result of the registry is a lot more powerful for a short video than inserting registrants going about a normal day, which would actually lend itself more to “what’s the big deal? they seem to be having a normal life so the registry isn’t that big of a deal”.

        • AJ

          @AlexO:
          If you go to the bottom of the op-ed, there’s a hyperlink to his documentary, “Untouchable” (http://www.untouchablefilm.com/). It was screened a number of times and places in 2016, but doesn’t appear to be available anywhere besides paying them $450 to download. I gotta think the snippets in the video are from the full-length film, especially given how FL-centric the clip is.

        • Tim Moore

          Just take out the image of the guy in the car, showing only his eyes, as if searching for his next victim. The rest is fine.

  9. Robert

    This is a great piece, expertly done – captures the enormous false narrative that has become crystallized so deeply in the minds of America following the erroneous 2003 SCOTUS ruling. Hard to imagine what force of inertia is necessary for people to genuinely understand, to accept what is really true and what is not true.

    • AlexO

      We can see it all around us every day of people ignoring the truth for their own “truth” and feelings. Even worse, politicians constantly egg them on to continue this path.

      I think this video sums up very well the public and politicians on facts versus feelings and perception.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

  10. It doesn't work

    This “sex offender registry” severely restricts and very negatively impacts what I am allowed to do, because I may or may not commit a crime in the future. I have completed my court imposed sentence!!

  11. AlexO

    I was thinking of sending this article to John Oliver of Last Week Tonight. He always does good pieces on reality and injustice of things, and debunking junk. I know it’s mile-long shot that they’d actually do a piece like this on such a taboo subject, but if he does, it could be a huge boon for us given his incredible popularity.

    • Bob

      Do it. Send Oliver the article with video. I can see him do a segment like this for sure on his show.

      • AlexO

        I found a place where I may be able to do it but it seems like LWT doesn’t take suggestions in general. Worth a try though.

        • AJ

          @AlexO:
          I can guarantee that if you don’t send it, you have absolutely no chance of their listening to your suggestion. Give it a go. It’s certainly a timely topic, given this op-ed, recent court decisions, etc.

        • AJ

          When looking up about LWT, I found this: “He [John Oliver] does not. But The NPR Show ON POINT With Tom Ashbrook does. And if it is a good topic he will most definitely look into the subject matter. Also his show is about as balanced as possible for NPR. So if he does so the story you will every side.” (https://www.reddit.com/r/lastweektonight/comments/6if8dj/does_john_olivers_show_takes_suggestions_on_what/)

          I’ve sent an email to “On Point,” requesting a neutral, objective analysis of what’s what.

          • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

            I would also suggest contacting Michael Krasny, the host of Forum on KQED which is picked-up by many other NPR affiliates.

    • Tim Moore

      A while ago a couple of us on this forum contacted JO through the HBO site which asks for suggestions. We didn’t have this video available at the time. No response. My thinking after watching LWT for awhile is that Oliver will not want to offend his base of support. That base seems to hate coal executives, but judging from Oliver’s comments, also hates sex offenders. Note, I am not saying registrants are anything like coal industry executives, just saying Oliver’s viewers would think both are inherently evil, and he would lose a bunch of viewers at best if he came off as being lenient to RSO’s. Reality check.

      • David Kennerly, Poster Boy For Whatever Pisses You Off

        If he does anything it will likely be about kids as sex offenders. That is a fairly safe position for the left and is still provocative and cutting edge enough to titillate viewers which is, after all, what it’s all about.

        This is where Lenore Skenazy is really terrific; she’s established a path for discussing the sex offender registry critically and has captured the imagination, and established cover, for others in the media.

  12. David

    If you go to Google News and search the word “offenders”, this NYT piece is the 1st article to appear. 👍

  13. Not Really

    I should have posted this link here, because the myth is cited as justification.

    http://ag.ca.gov/megan/pdf/ca_sexoff.pdf

    • New Person

      I saw a pie chart of their 900 line breakdown. 2% are known registrants. :blink, blink:

      • Not Really

        So the other 98% of requests for information were what? Paranoid requests? Hope for vengeance? Curiosity?

        How many requests were actually for the sake of someone’s safety because of a real fear per design?

        Interesting statistics.

  14. Chris F

    Great piece, the video and the article.

    I don’t know where the source of this is from in the article below the video, but it needs to be found and put into every lawsuit against the registry in California and probably other states:

    “Indeed, a study by the California Department of Corrections concluded that 91 percent of sex offenders returned to California prisons were returned for these technical violations, while only 1.8 percent were returned as a result of having committed a new sex crime.”

    No better way to show a judge this is cruel and unusual punishment and Bill of Attainder than to demonstrate how these extra “regulations” toss innocent people in jail for not exactly following some law targeting only them that doesn’t actually accomplish anything. It’s time to force the state to show us exactly how the “registration” information has been used to protect the public and how many real crimes it has solved or prevented.

    • AJ

      @Chris F:
      http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2015_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_8-25-2016.pdf, page 31. And the new-sex-crime number is actually lower than the op-ed says:
      Reason for Return‐to‐Prison/Number/Percent
      Parole Violation/4,579/90.8%
      New Non‐Sex Crime/316/6.3%
      Failure to Register as a Sex Offender/115/2.3%
      New Sex Crime/31/0.6%
      Total/5,041/100.0%

      • AlexO

        And what percentage of paroles is this data? I mean, if they tracking 100 paroles, how many of those violated any at all? Are we talking 10% of them violated, with 1% of that 10% being a new sex crime?

        • AJ

          @AlexO:
          Are you curious about the general recidivism of the RCs in this study? The total parolee population followed in the study was 95,690, so that puts RC recidivism of any type at 5.27% of the parolee population in the study.

          I’m more interested in the argument that registries don’t achieve or affect their stated–or any valid–purpose, as re-offense by those on it (“new sex crimes” in the pie chart) is low–in this case, minuscule. As well, I wonder how a judge (or *cough* SCOTUS *cough*) could find a rational basis to enact such onerous laws to stop 0.6% sex-offense recidivism. Talk about swatting a fly with a sledge hammer!

  15. Txso4life

    If you people have not notice, both Michigan and Fed’s reply briefs to Snyder case, currently pending in scotus, repeatedly cited the false frighten high recidivism rate poses by sex offenders! And our attorney has failed to counter that argument, which in turn will only be a disaster for our cause. I can not believe the government’s lawyers will lie through their teeth with the recidivism data. Unless we can find a way to forward this video to the attorney representing the Does in Snyder case, we are screwed!

    • AlexO

      I highly doubt the attorney is not aware. This isn’t some obscure information. If they haven’t yet cited the information, it must be for a reason.

      • AJ

        I’m guessing ACLU-MI kept it out of print to avoid embarrassing Justice Kennedy, especially since he’s the swing vote. I’m guessing it will be raised in oral argument…probably in rebuttal once MI brings it up in some manner. By doing it that way, it gives Kennedy and the rest of the Supremes a chance to address it, versus having to defend it.

        • AlexO

          That makes sense. You don’t want to piss-off the man that could make or break it. They may be the highest law of the land, but they’re still human, with human emotions, making even them fallible. Being too aggressive could result in bad ruling (again) that cannot go any higher to be appealed. It’s like, you don’t use the nitro in the first leg of the race. Save the good stuff for when you’re approaching the finish line.

    • Bobby

      @Txso4life,

      I have both PDF Briefs from The State of Michigan, and from Michigan’s ACLU ( Ms Aukerman) I asked for them and she e-mailed them to me a week or so ago. I don’t claim to be the brightest bulb in the box, from what I have read the state of Michigan is SCREWED NOT us. plus Justice Kagan would NOT have died Michigan’s stay if Michigan had a leg to stand on. All I can say is it sounds like SCOTUS is on our side more then they are against us at least here in Michigan,

      Now I wish I had a crystal ball so I knew which way they were headed on the 9-25-17 , as far as denying or reviewing Snyder. I for one hope they rule a certain way, for us here in Michigan, and I don’t mean to sound selfish, but it is what it is, we also have another similar case pending in The Michigan Supreme Court People of Michigan v Boban Temelkoski. I think The Michigan Supremes are waiting to see what SCOTUS does with Snyder, because Temelkoski is not suppose to be heard until 10-11-17 if I looked that up correctly.

      • AlexO

        A favorable federal ruling just for Michigan should be favorable for all, if indirectly. I mean, if the registry itself is ruled to be punitive in Michigan, I can’t see it not spreading elsewhere. You can’t have the Federal government rule that being punched in the groin is illegal in Michigan but okay in the other 49 states.

      • AJ

        A denial of Snyder by SCOTUS is essentially the same ruling as SCOTUS hearing it and affirming it. The difference is when SCOTUS rules, it automatically becomes law of the land. If they let the 6th stand, then cases would need to go through all the other circuits until they are all in line….and if one or more doesn’t align, it would have to go right back to SCOTUS. In short, a SCOTUS ruling will save us all many years, dollars, and heartache.

        Even if Snyder is accepted at the 9/25 conference, it’ll be a little bit before it’s argued, and then a number of months before any opinion is issued. In other words, the Temelkoski date will come and go before Snyder is decided (assuming its accepted).

        @Bobby: Don’t forget the USSG’s amicus, where they also say MI is punitive…but they then claim AWA isn’t. Yes, MI is screwed, and hopefully SCOTUS goes beyond that and addresses the mistake from McKune/Smith. I don’t know how SCOTUS could be unaware of it anymore, given the numerous media pieces about it, not to mention the governmental and academic studies.

        • AlexO

          They’re certainly aware but probably don’t actually have any power to do anything without a case making it before them (if I’m wrong on this, I’ll be glad to learn how such a process may actually take place). So it’s a waiting game for them for the lower courts to toss them the ball. I imagine they’re probably happy this is finally crawling its way back to them to fix the mistake that was made 15 years ago.

  16. Not Really

    It is a good bet that many appellate judges and at least some clerks of SCOTUS are familiar with this because there is a long post about it at Sentencing Law and Police that includes links to other reports on the myth.

    http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2017/09/new-op-ed-and-op-doc-from-new-york-times-takes-on-a-frightening-myth-about-sex-offenders.html

    It is no longer a secret.

  17. Paul

    I don’t know why these attorneys in front of the appellate court don’t flip out about this and say Kennedy and the high rates are lies. Thanks for the link AJ

  18. AJ

    Here’s a recent op-ed countering the NYT op-ed about recidivism. https://warhornmedia.com/2017/10/04/sex-crimes-recidivism-digging-deeper/

    I’m glad Prof. Rasmusen ignores the plethora of studies by government and academia alike, and instead focuses on the roundly debunked stats. Surprise, surprise.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum. Feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer this question to prove that you are not a robot *