Dubious Data Belies Supreme Court’s Stance on Repeat Sex Offenders

Last week at the Supreme Court, a lawyer made what seemed like an unremarkable point about registered sex offenders. “This court has recognized that they have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again,” said the lawyer, Robert C. Montgomery, who was defending a North Carolina statute that bars sex offenders from using Facebook, Twitter and other social media services.

The Supreme Court has indeed said the risk that sex offenders will commit new crimes is “frightening and high.” That phrase, in a 2003 decision upholding Alaska’s sex offender registration law, has been exceptionally influential. It has appeared in more than 100 lower-court opinions, and it has helped justify laws that effectively banish registered sex offenders from many aspects of everyday life.

But there is vanishingly little evidence for the Supreme Court’s assertion that convicted sex offenders commit new offenses at very high rates. The story behind the notion, it turns out, starts with a throwaway line in a glossy magazine. Full Article

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

The counselor/author of the 1986 Psychology Today article needs to write a new article, with corrections.
His “one sentence” regarding the recedivism rate of offenders has caused so much personal pain to thousands of registrants and their families, as a counselor and more so as a human being, he has a moral and ethical obligation to make his wrong, right.

The author was Robert E. Longo. The article was written when he was at Oregon State Hospital. He is now in Lexington, NC

Mr. Longo’s website: http://www.roblongo.com/about_us.php

This article gives me hope.

Can I have a job please? I am qualified.
NO, you are a RSO, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and State courts state so. NO, NEVER!
YOU CanNOT, you canNOT be trusted anywhere. You are on the internet and federal website. NO.
But I have a Bachelor’s Degree…I offended decades ago…I have been off Probation/Parole for over decades ago. I have no tickets, no other arrests or convictions, I follow the law, I am an American and have been here since birth with a certificate.

NO, get out of here and don’t come back, or I will call the POLICE!
You can’t work at even a McDonalds or even a Janitor! you sir are white trash.
Thank you for your time.

even though the truth is starting to become known it still isn’t the whole truth. im talking about the use of rearrest rates and not the actual recidivism rates..even though the rearrest rates are extreemly low it’s still a lie when your considering the actual recidivism rate…also where the hellll do they keep pulling this 27% after 20 years crap? I don’t believe that statistic either..other than that great article the hammer keeps rising and is about to be dropped on an already crumbling registration scheme…once someone makes the justification and the misinformation used in the first place their main argument bammmm the scheme as it is goes away and we’ll end up with a registration more narrowly targeted at only high risk offenders who the state can prove with the clear and convincing evidence standard are a threat to public safety….it’s coming…
I only wish Janice and team would jump on board with this and maybe even lead the way..