CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE ROLE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
Melissa Hamilton, of the University of Houston Law Center, last week put out a study entitled; “Constitutional Law and the Role of Scientific Evidence: The Transformative Potential of Doe v. Snyder”
The Study is a must read and highlights a frustrating occurrence that’s been recurring in countless “sex offender” cases for over a decade – that, for lack of a better term… is bullshit. Or, to use a more polite term… lies. Or, to be politically correct… the perpetuation of myths. I prefer the former.
Even during oral arguments in Packingham, the SCOTUS case heard this week, attorney for North Carolina, Robert Montgomery, said, “… they have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again.” I had to read the transcript twice… was he still spewing the same BS about a “high rate of recidivism” and “very likely to do this again”?
That lie… sorry, myth… had been famously debunked in law professor Ira Ellman’s famous essay and by numerous actual studies including government statistics. So why were attorneys still getting away with using it? It made me wonder why Packingham’s attorney didn’t get up there and just say, “well, Senior Deputy Attorney Generals from North Carolina are usually drug addicts known to lie most of the time”. If you can just stand before the highest court in the land and spew BS, why don’t both sides go for it?
The 6th Circuit, in Doe v. Snyder, wasn’t having it. Late last year they put out an opinion that actually considered Scientific Evidence vs. the BS … sorry, myth… that was being perpetuated. That Court acknowledged that the recidivism rate wasn’t that “frighteningly high”, or even “very high”, or even high, for that matter. It was low… perhaps “surprisingly low” and, in fact, much lower than most other crimes!
Ms. Hamilton’s study can be found here: