Professor Carpenter makes a groundbreaking and innovative argument against the registry. She presents a compelling case for how judges could utilize the “Irrebuttable Presumption Doctrine” to challenge the registry on the basis that it is grounded in false and discredited junk science.
Click here to download the free “Panicked Legislation” article
Abstract of the paper:
We are in the throes of a moral panic. It is not the first time, nor will it likely be the last, but it is among the most enduring. Dubbed the sex panic, it has bred widespread and ever-escalating legislation, impacted the lives of more than a million people and their families, and caused public hysteria and violence. And unlike other moral panics in our history that dissipated over time, there are no signs that the sex panic is diminishing. Indeed, this panic grows more virulent with each passing year.
Panicked legislation is both the symbol and the result of a moral panic. The article is uniquely situated, linking both social science and legal theories to offer a dynamic account of the world of moral panics, the mythical narratives that support them, and the inaccurate risk management assessment that plagues them. It is ultimately a cautionary tale of hastily-crafted and fear-driven legislation that is fueled by the public’s distorted fear of a targeted group of people.
With a public unable or unwilling to hear the evidence, and political actors invested in their electorate, this article urges judicial intervention through the Irrebuttable Presumption Doctrine to challenge statutory schemes that are based on false assumptions that masquerade as universal truths.
Click here to download the full “Panicked Legislation” article
This is a good read, of course, and it summarizes yet again what we here on this forum already know (for the most part). I will sound like a broken record when I ask again: How in the world can Smith vs Doe still be valid, arguing that the recidivism rate for PFRs is frightening and high, yet it is PROVEN statistically that this is simply NOT the case? Why are they getting away with something for all these years when it is clearly a LIE! What if a teacher is fired because the majority of his/ her students is failing, but then you look at all the tests, and 90% are actually not failing. Just because someone says something does not mean it’s true, and when it can be PROVEN it is not true, it should be a slam dunk and voiced. What seems to be the issue with Smith vs Doe? They have to admit they are wrong and we can prove they are wrong.
They will call a Noble Lie! i forget where i heard this from”Plato’s Republic “but i am sure thats what they are thinking
Panic is one thing, but I suspect something much larger and planned. Something more along the lines of the impact of the printing press, particularly as it relates to mass communication. The DDI is revolutionary all right, wait and see. But clearly the people resorted to old ways in its promulgation. Human servitude to State property is not without history, despite the “new” trumpeted by Rehnquist majority. I may not apologize because modern You-tubers et. al. haven’t figured out yet, that they are participating as share croppers on their respective platforms. The people that post here do so by their own volition, SOR not so much.
Wonderful review of the situation. Excellent review of this got started, where it is today. It also gives tremendous insight into how to make a better future, not just for PFRs, but for the Nation as a whole. Reject panic, embrace the facts!
A great concise summary of both history and citation. I only hope that there are those in authority with the character to evenly consider a scholarly argument at this point… when so many businesses and government budgets are propped up behind the lie that started it all.
Why is this topic being posted just weeks after its first posting? It’s the same law-review article in the URL.