Briefing the Supreme Court: Promoting Science or Myth?

The United States Supreme Court is considering Packingham v. North Carolina, a case testing the constitutionality of a ban on the use of social networking sites by registered sex offenders. An issue that has arisen in the case is the state’s justification for the ban. North Carolina and thirteen other states represented in a friend of the court brief make three claims concerning the risk of registered sex offenders:

(1) sex offenders have a notoriously high rate of sexual recidivism;

(2) sex offenders are typically crossover offenders in having both adult and child victims; and

(3) sexual predators commonly use social networking sites to lure children for sexual exploitation purposes.

The collective states contend that these three claims are supported by scientific evidence and common sense. This Essay explores the reliability of the scientific studies cited in the briefings considering the heteregenous group of registered sex offenders to whom the social networking ban is targeted. Abstract and Paper


The Transformative Potential of Doe v. Snyder


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I hope this is not the end. Regardless of the SG brief. The SCOUTS still could review and here arguments. I came across this earlier anyone want to tell me what this is about.

Check out the conclusion of the paper! Finally, sanity is starting to appear!

“In its amicus brief, an association of sex offender treatment professionals correctly emphasize the “myth of homogeneity” concerning sex offenders. Instead, scientific research indicates “registrants are not a homogenous group of ‘sex offenders’ that should be monolithically managed. Rather, registrants comprise a diverse group of individuals, each different from the next in terms of past criminal history, behavioral patterns, and risk of recidivism.” Further, the experts properly warn that policies that target sex offenders which are not based on some empirical reality are unlikely to be effective. In the end, North Carolina and thirteen other states weighing in as friends of the court in Packingham v. North Carolina offer a troubling version of the scientific evidence in an attempt to support a significant ban on registered sex offenders’ use of social networking sites. It is not clear if the states’ legal representatives were merely naïve and uneducated on the true science behind the empirical studies they tout. The alternative that they are intentionally misleading the Supreme Court on the risks of sex offenders as a group would be regrettable for ethical and political reasons. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will see through the guise of science the states work so hard to convey as simply reconstituting the myth of sex offenders.”

Every RC and their families and friends owe Ms. Hamilton a huge thank you for this superb piece, in which she refutes North Carolina’s “evidence” of a high rate of recidivism among registrants. We all know high recidivism is a myth, but Melissa Hamilton has done the research and crunched the numbers to show how North Carolina and other states have mis-read or twisted sex-offense studies to serve their own interests, and not the truth, in the Packingham case. Importantly, her research here is valid not just for Packingham but for other cases that are and will be before the courts. I recommend everyone take the time to read this article.