Last week Robert Montgomery, a senior deputy attorney general at the North Carolina Department of Justice, seemed to have little success convincing the Supreme Court that his state’s law banning sex offenders from social media is consistent with the First Amendment. But at least one statement Montgomery made in defense of the law went unchallenged, even though it has no empirical basis. “This Court has recognized that [sex offenders] have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again,” he said. “Even as late as 20 years from when they are released, they may recidivate.” Full Article
Related
Questionable Statistic Pervades High Court Sex Offender Cases
I’m starting to see a trend here.
Let’s hope the Justice’s and their 3-4 legal assistants read news and know how to research and fact check now, unlike in 2002 and 2003.
this isn’t even my updated cases and what’s it saying????evidence, evidence evidence…
When “particularly important” interests are involved in a civil proceeding, whether or not physical restraint is threatened, the United States Supreme Court has mandated a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof and stated that, “[n]otwithstanding ‘the state’s “civil labels and good intentions,” ‘ . . . this level of certainty [is deemed] necessary to preserve fundamental fairness in a variety of government-initiated proceedings that threaten the individual involved with ‘a significant deprivation of liberty’ or ‘stigma.’ ” Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 756 (1982) (requiring clear and convincing evidence standard to support termination of parental rights), quoting Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425, 426, 427 (1979) (civil commitment); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 125, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). A registrant’s liberty interest is seriously infringed in the creation of a long-term relationship with the police, in the potential criminal sanctions overshadowing that relationship, and in the stigma of notification – all penalties that are “more substantial than mere loss of money.” Santosky, supra, quoting Addington v. Texas, supra at 424.
The court also too easily confines the State’s interest to a single dimension. While the primary purpose of the registration statute is to protect the public from sexual predators, the State also has “an interest in ensuring that its classification and notification system is both fair and accurate.” E.B. v. Verniero, supra at 1107. The State has no interest in making erroneous classifications and implementing overbroad registration and notifications. Id. See Doe v. Pataki, supra at (slip op. at 32).
in order for the SCOTUS to ignore the facts and evidence they would have to overturn countless of their own decisions……its so obviously ingrained in our jurisprudence that it’s ludicrous not to argue that issue in every case…ludicrous….
I wonder if there is a way to send the factual statistics and these news articles to the legal assistants and clerks of the Justices.
The low reoffense rate certainly undermines the regulatory justification for notification laws. But citizens aren’t cattle that you can cull the whole herd because one has found an infectious desease in one or more of the herd. Cattle don’t have the Bill of Rights, so they marginalize this group enough to be on the level of stock. Property to manage. Treating people as a herd, instead of having individual assessments, should be the real constitutional wrong being addressed, not just how many in the defined group is dangerous and the number needed to make a law jump from punitive to civil. I believe that is an attainder, no matter how the numbers lay out. Nonetheless, the public views registrants as dangerous animals and if it can be shown there is only a few bad apples, the whole group looks more non-threatening. That’s how bigotry works. Then people may not feel the need for these laws so much. That’s about all we can hope for at this time. It is too much at this time for people to think former sex offenders retain any rights to individual assessment.
One thing I want to point out about the Packingham and other recent cases:
The hate mongers are starting to go with a new replacement for “frightening and high” that is just as misguided and dangerous if not refuted at every chance. They also use this to try to squash the LOW RECIDIVISM numbers we state.
That new statement is, “under-reporting of sex crimes”.
The lawyers and supporters of the sex offender registry will claim that the low recidivism doesn’t take into account how 80% (or whatever outrageous number they try to use) of sex crimes go unreported, so our previous sex offenders must account for that and actually have much higher recidivism than studies claim but just aren’t getting caught.
This, however, can be easily refuted and should be at every chance:
1) 85% – 95% of sex crimes against children are committed by a family member or person known to them
2) Even without the Registry, those convicted of sex crimes against children are forever kept out of teaching, daycare, healthcare, and other jobs with access to children by the FBI database available to those employers and even sealed records do not hide the conviction from them.
3) Someone convicted of a sex charge against a minor most likely will not be able to keep friends, family, or co-workers in the dark about those charges and therefore will not be in a position again to take advantage of a known minor.
4) There would be less incentive for any sex assault victim to keep silent when a previously convicted sexual predator commits another sex crime (It isn’t like the victim wouldn’t be believed, or that the criminal will be looked at sympathetically).
All of this points to the fact that the group of people least likely to commit a sex offense against a minor that does not get reported are those previously convicted of a sex crime.
Please use this in any discussions where you see it being brought up.
Reading the Bloomberg BNA article attached above is quite interesting. The individual who is quoted in the article in favor of the NC law and believes the high and frightening data has her head in the sand because anything else would possibly undermine her position in society, her credibility and her income. Here, here is more Kool-Aid for you to drink and believe the tooth fairy is real also.