Will SCOTUS Let Fear of Sex Offenders Trump Justice?

Two cases give the Court a chance to reconsider its counterintuitive conclusions about commitment and registration.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court, locking up sex offenders after they have completed their sentences is not punishment, and neither is branding them as dangerous outcasts for the rest of their lives. Two cases the Court could soon agree to hear give it an opportunity to reconsider, or at least qualify, those counterintuitive conclusions. Full Article

Also see

Snyder vs Doe

Karsjens v Piper



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

No surprise that Reason.com is on our side about this, but it’s still refreshing to see it out there (again). Also, as of my reading the article, there were only four comments from three posters–and were on our side.

Also, let’s hope that our fellow citizens who do not merit civil commitment are also blessed with a cert grant and get the justice and freedom they’ve been denied.

They are using the famous “Big Lie” to keep things under control and people convinced. The people would rather hear the popular lie about “sex offender registry not being punishment” and “high recidivism rate” to make everyone feel safe etc, than the unpopular truth that the registry destroys lives, and that people are being feed with falsehoods and junk science as manipulation to keep the registry system maintained. The question is how do you break that cycle of manipulation and helping others wake up?

This is quite a quote: “The Supreme Court has upheld post-prison commitment of sex offenders, accepting the pseudoscientific claim that a propensity to commit a certain type of crime is an illness that mental health professionals can cure (in this case, an illness defined by state legislators rather than psychiatrists). But the Court has warned that imposing punishment in the guise of treatment may be unconstitutional.”

I’m liking Jacob Sullum more-and-more.

This line from the amicus filed by the CATO Institute opposing the sex offender detention scheme is powerful. The authors of the amicus note that “Sex offender laws have bored a hole in the nation’s constitutional fabric.” I hope that the SCOTUS elects to hear both of these important cases and uses this opportunity to fix a problem that they largely allowed by relying on debunked statistics to justify the abuse of registrants.

not meaning to be pessimistic, but hopefully they don’t take the cases and claim recidivism rates are irrelevant to their constitutional decisions. We’ll see..Scrotus is kind of coming under the gun in that every news outlet and all the professionals are calling the courts decisions out…


Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the did. Did not the supreme court recently cite a “frightening and high” 80% probability for registrants to re-offend? Are these not the made up “statistical” odds cited by almost everyone in all levels of government who count personal gain, self preservation and how they are perceived among themselves and by their useful idiots (the public) above truth, honesty and high moral principals? Nope; I ain’t holding my breath. They’ll probably cite the manufactured fear created by their kind as their logic to “trump justice.” And this they will call justice. They act on what is the opposite of truth. And all the other side of truth leaves is what is called a lie. Truth is light and lies are darkness.

“We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark. The real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” –  Plato

According to Florida Action Committee, Snyder hearing was denied by SCOTUS.

Just wanted to let you know I did try and contact that attorney a few weeks ago, but have still heard nothing back. I sent him an email with the question you wanted answered along with some other issues i want to tackle. I know he is in the process of filing an additional lawsuit relating to rc’s so he may be really busy. When I fully recover from what im dealing with, i plan to more aggressively pursue legal consel about some things i want addressed. If i havent heard from him ill find someone else. I have your question saved and ill be sure to ask it as soon as I can find someone to ask. Just didnt want you to think I wasnt trying haha.