Last May the 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 urging the 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.
That phrase comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy’s plurality opinion in the 2002 Supreme Court case McKune v. Lile, where he claimed “the rate of recidivism of untreated offenders has been estimated to be as high as 80%.” Kennedy’s characterization of the recidivism risk as “frightening and high” has been echoed in scores of decisions upholding restrictions on sex offenders. But the original source for his recidivism estimate was an uncorroborated assertion in a 1986 Psychology Today article by a therapist who has repudiated the number, saying he is “appalled” at its lingering impact.
An example of that impact can be found in a brief from Arizona Voice for Crime Victims (AVCV), a group that wants the Supreme Court to hear Arizona v. Goodman and uphold the state’s bail ban. The brief, which was written by AVCV lawyer Steven Twist, Dallas attorney Allyson Ho, and University of Utah law professor (and Volkoh Conspiracy contributor) Paul Cassell, mentions “frightening and high” recidivism rates three times; it also refers to “frighteningly high” and “alarmingly high” recidivism rates. Yet the numbers cited in the brief fall far short of the discredited estimate that Kennedy cited in McKune:
- “Studies have found that 17 percent of sex offenders were convicted of another sex offense within five years of release—with 21 percent reconvicted within ten years.” That is based on an analysis of studies that included rapists and child molesters but not other kinds of sex offenders (such as people caught with child pornography).
- “One study shows that over a five-year period, 21.4 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for violent offenses—nearly identical to the 21.7 percent of homicide convicts who were rearrested for violent offenses during that same period.” That number is for people convicted of rape or sexual assault. If anything, it indicates that sex offenders don’t have unusually high recidivism rates.
- “A Department of Justice study found that a significant number of sex offenders—14 percent—not only reoffend, but also do so while out on bail.” That figure applies to people charged with rape who were arrested while on bail; only 3 percent were charged with felonies, and it’s not clear how many of those were sex offenses.
If the therapist had any kind of self morals He would do the right thing be recanting that statement,setting the record straight or make an article admitting he was wrong. Because of few isolated incidents across the U.S. the rest of us have to suffer. The few case of know public outcry of the accused sex offender and murders these people are either dead or life in prison. He is my opinion I feel that the judges are afraid of public opinion so they give in to save their seats. A true Judge is a judge not easy swayed by opinions I was a republican and Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a liberal judge. However she grew up inner city and understands the hardships. Her experience knows of the true hardships one faces in life not some ivy league or Hale who has family money. There needs to be Judges like her to understand what life is like and used judgement based soley on facts not to give in to others alleged opinions. With all due respect Justice Anthony Kennedy who relied on opinion of others but not facts truly failed the Scared oath of 28 U.S. Code 453- Oaths of Justices
The therapist has already publicly recanted, according to the article, hasn’t he? Supreme Court, unlike lower courts, is not really in the business of determining facts (such as reiffense rates) and normally consider what’s been argued before them. So I don’t entirely blame Kennedy for his ignorance here. Sotomayor, by contrast, is the only member of SCOTUS who believes that $1 million in restitution can be justified simply for viewing pictures on the computer, and I’m not sure why she has expressed that belief.
@ jacob please provide link or an article I wasn’t aware of that statement “1 million in resitution for looking at porn” I was under the impression she was agreeing with the victim and disagreeing with the other judges. I was saying Judge Sonia is being fair and not ruling with public opinon and her peers. legal fees should be paid I am not taking sides but producing and letting others see the child victim nude is wrong I have a sex crime on me too I am saying some sort of restitution should be given. I had to pay fines,court costs victim restitution and be place on sex offender registry. The guy did not even have to register
It was my understanding that in Paroline, Sotomayor was agreeing with the victim who sought $1 million in restitution from a single viewer.
Not that I didn’t think Sotomayor was sincere in her view, but it raised my eyebrows. The crime of possession normally is not seen as causing that amount of proximate harm to a victim.
i always laugh at the re-offense statistics because they never do a complete survey of all sex offenders and they include things like violating probation and so on. If you wont allow a man/woman on the registry to live/work/breath because they are on the registry what do you think they will do? now that being homeless is against the law also i am sure they will arrest those RSO’s and make it part of their re-offense statistics so they can say hey everyone look the re-offense rate of RSO’s IS so high we have to make their lives more miserable.
This is another example that our criminal courts aren’t about a “justice system” and equality but rather a legal system where the governments’ actions are highly favored in public forum contests and those who put on the best show win. That’s why in the Federal system the rules of law so favor the prosecutors with little chance of a defendant getting a not guilty verdict. That little chance is the hope dangled in front of the public like a carrot in front a beast of labor to keep up motivation. Equal Justice in our criminal courts is an illusion, a fabrication, a myth.