{"id":10238,"date":"2023-03-21T11:42:56","date_gmt":"2023-03-21T11:42:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=10238"},"modified":"2023-03-21T11:42:56","modified_gmt":"2023-03-21T11:42:56","slug":"how-scotus-promoted-pernicious-myths-about-sex-offender-registries","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=10238","title":{"rendered":"How SCOTUS Promoted Pernicious Myths About Sex Offender Registries"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“Summarizing the evidence in a 2016 National Affairs<\/em> article, Eli Lehrer noted<\/a> that “virtually no well-controlled study shows any quantifiable benefit from the practice of notifying communities of sex offenders living in their midst.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To reinforce the logic of registries, Kennedy averred that “the risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.'” He was quoting his own opinion in an earlier case<\/a>, which in turn relied on an unsubstantiated estimate<\/a> from a source who has publicly<\/a> and repeatedly<\/a> disavowed it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“as Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent<\/a>, there was “significant evidence of onerous practical effects of being listed on a sex offender registry,” ranging from “public shunning, picketing, press vigils, ostracism, loss of employment, and eviction” to “threats of violence, physical attacks, and arson.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those predictable costs, combined with legal restrictions on where registrants may live<\/a> and which locations they may visit<\/a>, undermine rehabilitation and continue to punish registrants long after they have completed their sentences. That is why several state<\/a> and federal<\/a> courts have concluded<\/a>, contrary to what the Supreme Court said in Smith<\/em>, that registration schemes are punitive in effect<\/a>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
How SCOTUS Promoted Pernicious Myths About Sex Offender Registries<\/a><\/blockquote>