Proponents of criminal justice reform never talk about sex offenders. They’re political untouchables subject to lifelong restrictions that continue long past their confinement, restrictions justified as necessary to protect the public from their propensity to re-offend. Two Supreme Court decisions established that justification. But they rely on a scientific study that doesn’t exist. Full Article
Related
‘Frightening and High’: The Frightening Sloppiness of the High Court’s Sex Crime Statistics
Senator Shelby, sponsor of the proposed International Megan’s law, needs to have his nose rubbed in this report.
God bless this man for having the courage to write something that is true, accurate, and flies in the face of the mass perception (hysteria) that is promulgated by those who seek to enhance their futures by trampling on the bodies of the down-trodden.
This body of law is the Fountain of Youth for all politicians to drink from. It doesn’t matter that these laws are profoundly unconstitutional on so many fronts and that they obviously impose ex post facto punishment.
One drink of the miracle water and there is new hope for their perpetuating political and public service careers on the backs of Lady Liberty, The US Constitution and the millions who have served their sentences and are being essentially punished for crimes not yet committed. If this isn’t a politicians dream, there isn’t one.
File under lies, rhetoric and hyperbole – something too many politicians thrive upon.
Very good article that indicates the source (“Psychology Today”!) of the “very high and dangerous” (and false!) recidivism statistic. Judges basing major decisions on inaccurate information is a travesty of the law.
A few statements in this article really hit home, and show how illogical the logic of all this really is.
“People may assume the registry’s purpose is to warn people about those who committed violent, coercive, or exploitative contact sex offenses, but they’re in fact filled up with people who never did any of those things.”
I have to wonder what the logic in Alaska is for doing this and how this could possibly facilitate anything good.
“Alaska posts the address and place of employment of all registrants “for public viewing in print or electronic form, so that it can be used by “any person” and “for any purpose.””
I wonder if they (the supreme court) are getting paid, which could be the basis for their cavalier attitude and cavalier rulings.
“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has fed the fear. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true.”
“The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “something is rotten in Denmark.” Lawmakers and the courts have been at this for a very long time now, and to still speak, act vote and rule the way they do, acting as though they have never been exposed to the facts/truth. This speaks for it’s self. And what it’s saying is not good.
What’s up with this article I can’t seem to open it or veiw it and it sounds like there is good fodder in it from the summary that could be used in my motion
Ok I thought this was a new article thanks
I have found a related article on this topic. http://www.gateschilipost.com/article/20150904/NEWS/150909791