This paper (Frightening and High ...) is severely flawed in its accusation of misrepresentations by the Solicitor General way back in 2003. This paper reviews what occurred in 2003 in today's light, 2015, using stats known today which were not known in March 2003 (and beforehand when case was prepared), that in of itself is a misconstruction. Any review of past occurrences must be with what was known then, not what is known today.
Further, when any lawyer presents research to support his/her position, that ACT is not a false act. If someone else does not believe the research presented, and cites their research which has a different opinion, that does not make the other Lawyer's research FALSE or the Act of presenting it, a misrepresentation.
While I do not agree with the 2003 decision, the way it occurred was not a misrepresentation by anyone. Court cases handled then are still handled the same way today. To accuse lawyers in the past of misrepresentation one must accuse lawyers today as well. The judicial process as it occurs then and today is not flawed. If readers are interested in knowing the real problem in 2003 then read this 2005 paper "Special Report: Misquoting of Prentky's 1997 Long Term Recidivism Study: Affecting a MAJOR US Supreme Court Decision."
This brief essay reveals that the sources relied upon by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe, a heavily cited constitutional decision on sex offender registries, in fact provide no support at all for the facts about sex offender re-offense rates that the Court treats as central to its constitutional conclusions.
This misreading of the social science was abetted in part by the Solicitor General’s misrepresentations in the amicus brief it filed in this case. The false “facts” stated in the opinion have since been relied upon repeatedly by other courts in their own constitutional decisions, thus infecting an entire field of law as well as policy making by legislative bodies.
Recent decisions by the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts establish principles that would support major judicial reforms of sex offender registries, if they were applied to the actual facts. ..Source.. by Ira Mark Ellman and Tara Ellman