The abstract below includes the full 12 page essay by Ira Mark and Tara Ellman, providing fact based research regarding sex offender recidivism commonly cited by high paid lobbiests who get wealthy through misinformation and fear based hearsay . If you are unsure of how to locate that information links are provided below.

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.

This paper is scheduled to appear in Constitutional Commentary during Fall, 2015.  Revised 8/11/15