Disagreed. There are judges who follow the law and make decisions based on fact regardless of ones legal status.

And when they do they get overturned; no?

The original source was a Psychology Today article from an Oregon sex offender treatment provider in about 1985. He was claiming that a subgroup of untreated sex offenders had a recividism rate of as high as 80%, and that his treatment dramatically reduced recividism rates. IIRC, the Oregon state legislature was considering cutting funding to his treatment program, and he wrote the article in hopes of keeping his funding going. The article had absolutely nothing to do with strengthening sex offender registration. (Which in those days was police-only in the states that even had sex offender registration at all.)

The Oregon author has now admitted he made the 80% number up off the top of his head, and is upset that about how his article is being used. However, it’s too late to fix the damage now. I don’t even think courts realize that the Psychology Today article is their ultimate source at this point. By the time of Smith v Doe, Kennedy wasn’t actually directly citing the Psychology Today article-he was citing an article that was citing an article that was citing an article that was citing an article…..- and somewhere on a pretty long chain of citations there was an article that cited the Psychology Today article.

If they weren’t quoting that Psychology Today article from the 1980s, they’d have found something else to quote.

Courts never rule on the side of a sex offender? That’s false.

Sad to say this latest study, or a hundred more like it, will not sway the emotion-driven laws we suffer under. Like so many long-term injustices in America, change must come by Supreme Court verdict.

NOT A ONE OF THEM even bothered to verify that false claim.?? No need to verify, they already knew years ago, as i keep telling you folks they can not and will not allow a win for the sex offender, they face the wrath that will follow,,,,,,,,,, and they know this all to well, pray for acceptance is all we can do,, the registry will be here forever,, and it will get worse,, far worse in the years to come.

Let us not forget the SO-hating Senator Florence Shapiro of Plano, Tx who quoted the charlatan who had the bogus treatment center in one of the prison systems. He submitted his “study” to the reputable journals, and after being turned down, submitted it to Psychology Today by a counselor Ronald Longo. Senator Shapiro quoted his statement in that layman’s magazine that the recidivism rate is “alarming and frieghteningly high; as high as 80%”.
She did not attempt to verify this false statement, but what was worse, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy quoted her when making a decision in an appeal case. Like the SCOTUS justice, other lower court justices quoted him when deciding against defendant’s appeals. NOT A ONE OF THEM even bothered to verify that false claim.
Ira Ellman published a well-researched paper about the so-called expert. Google Ira Ellman and scroll down to “frightening and high: the Supreme Court’s crucial mistake to get the whole story.
Most of the laws, such as Jessica’s Law, are based on this false statement. Longo, who presented himself as an expert in the 1986 issue of Psychology Today is mostly responsible for all these useless laws. It’s beyond appalling that one person’s screwed up ideas and outright fake statistics is responsible for a nation that has created the biggest legal mess in history.

Smart man, I did exactly the same thing yesterday by attaching the report to a short comment that summarizes who ATSA is.

I referenced the ATSA document in my comment and attached a PDF copy–which the DOJ website supports. I suspect nobody at the DOJ will read it because such ideologues would prefer to remain willfully ignorant of objective data.

There are 11 days remaining in the comment period. If anyone else is going to comment, I think it would be a great idea to attach one of their own reports showing low sexual recidivism rates.

Veritas.