Arizona Supreme Court overturned a state ban on bail for people accused of sexual assault “when the proof is evident or the presumption great,” concluding that the categorical exclusion violated the constitutional right to due process. Critics of that decision are urgingthe U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case, Arizona v. Goodman, and their arguments highlight the continuing influence of misconceptions about the “frightening and high risk of recidivism” among sex offenders. Full Article
Related posts
-
The Supreme Court Wants to Revive a Doctrine That Would Paralyze Biden’s Administration
Joe Biden promised us an FDR-sized presidency—starting with bold action to halt the spread of COVID-19,... -
SCOTUS: Petition Maryland v. Rogers
Maryland v. Rogers addresses whether sex offender registration is “punishment” within the meaning of the Sixth... -
Janice’s Journal: Mourning the Loss of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
After a long battle with cancer, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died yesterday. She...
What a well-written piece!
@Justice Kennedy is Catholic, so I’m sure he knew a good deal about recidivism among gay priests who’s behavior lead to scandal involving young men and boys. He quoted information that supported what he already had personal experience with just by being a Catholic. But Kennedy was but one of five Catholic court members in DOEs. The mistake provided collateral cover justifying government USE of databases that essentially made NULL the following equation: Machine Need > Human need.
The registries databases are properties, the mandated demand is a form of indentured servitude – electronic, the commodity being (useful) data. Such a regime is the first of human kind. If a lowly state can indenture for a felony crime, a citizen to a database, it’s maintaining for life; Then a more powerful FED can go how far with data base use???????
A Reason.com contributor slamming a fellow Reason contributor from a blog…Interesting…
What a great article, if only all the supreme court members could read it.
A very well written article that will likely be ignored by just about everybody. The entire scam of today’s version of the SOR is based on this bogus, sixteen year old statement and the following decision by SCOTUS. Think of the amount of political capital, taxpayer money, and earnings for law enforcement, prisons, lawyers, monitoring companies/technology, internet extortionists and therapists that is involved here. These are the true reasons for the existence of the SOR. It has absolutely nothing to do with the public good, safety, or “protecting the children”. The people in power are doing this for the political capital and the actual capital. The people who oppose this are doing so because it’s the right thing to do. Because this is true, we need to force the courts to kill the SOR because it’s unconstitutional. Asking them to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing isn’t going to work. Human nature is very predictable. Need proof? Look at the responses by both government and business when the royal family of a certain country murdered and dismembered a journalist. They got caught. Nobody cared. Now they’re going to prosecute and execute the people they sent to perform said murder. Yes, it’s a different country. Yes, I am generalizing. Yes, human nature is still predictable.
That statement is merely an uneducated and biased opinion from Kennedy which has morphed into what is referred to as the “Illusory truth effect.”
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/dont-believe-lies-just-people-repeat
“the rate of recidivism of UNTREATED offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.”
Perhaps so? But so what!
All that should say to people is, Hey! A person who has Not been convicted of a sex offense is waaaaay more dangerous to society than those who have been arrested and placed in the correction and treatment system.
Why are we comparing apples to oranges? And what bearing does this statement have on an unconstitutional registry that serves no other purpose than to blatantly interfere with the ongoing “treatment” and rejuvenation of individuals striving to become a better person.
When clearly “Treatment” is so very important in reducing sexual assault both before and after the fact, why in the world are we not devoting our limited funds to meaningful prevention for both the innocent and guilty instead of the ever growing and popular shame and blame game.
Do they even know? Do the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States know that their credibility has been tarnished by this “frightening and high” charade?
It’s bad enough that the entire judicial branch of government has allowed itself to be emasculated by continually ruling in favor of laws that effectively give the legislative and executive branch more and more power that should only be reserved for the judicial branch of government. But now we have the nation’s high court that can’t seem to remove the “stench from the room” left by this outrageous ruling that is almost 2 decades old. Are they not the laughing stock of the professional legal community??? They should be.
I’m curious how Justice Brett Kavanaugh now views the registry. After all, he was more or less tried and convicted by the media of a sexual assault which we all now know he never committed.
Maybe, just maybe, Justice Kavanaugh will think twice before drinking this stale Kool-Aid. Maybe, just maybe, his colleagues will too.
We can only hope…
A 1986 Psychology Today magazine article seems to be the Supreme Court’s basis for the decisions they make regarding the registry.
I don’t think it’s that they aren’t aware of current statistics or facts. I’ve written to the justices. They’ve been made aware!
I think they just don’t care.
🤣&😭 This NPR podcast “On the Media” episode called “Objection!” is certainly worth listening to. I had trouble not laughing (and crying) at the absurdity of their first segment’s discussion regarding SCOTUS and actual facts!
Yes, SCOTUS-focused journalists, how about addressing the real facts opposing “frightening and high”??? 😡