Recently I've received e-mails about a new paper addressing 2003 Smith v Doe, one of two sex offender cases from 2003, and which did rely on a portion of 2002 McKune v Lie. Supposedly this new essay found a way to challenge the authority of 2002 McKune v Lie, as to claims of sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. If that were possible then 2003 Smith v Doe would be in trouble as well. i.e.,cut the roots and the tree will fall.
While I hadn't heard of the authors of the essay before but I am always open to new work and ideas. Given my past research on both of the cases above I was interested in reviewing this essay. I had high hopes this was the Golden Egg. So this is a review of their Essay:
"The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics"
I recognized the paper because it was also on SSRN, but the version sent to me was different. So for clarity sake: paper on SSRN is Version-B ('Frightening and High': The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics), version sent to me is Version-A (The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics)(Links provided). Titles slightly different, inside looks different as well so my review is of Version-A only.
Sex offender recidivism is always an issue, it has been in the past and will continue to be in the future. Sex offender recidivism is high or low depends on the research paper one reviews; how it is measured can vastly effect percentages. Recidivism is a measurement of the success or failure of past social, rehabilitative and law enforcement programs.
Here is what we learned: CLICK Problems with research..