“Panicked Legislation”: Read ACSOL board member Professor Catherine Carpenter’s newest law review article

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

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
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

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

Last edited 6 months ago by Entenmanns

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.