Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
6-1-2018
Abstract
Amici are scholars whose work includes leading studies of persons convicted of sexual offenses and the laws applied to them. Amici are concerned that judicial decisions regarding these offenders have sometimes relied upon misunderstandings about the re-offense risks they pose and the impact of laws applied to them. Amici wish to provide the Court with accurate information about these subjects. Short biographies of each amicus are appended to this brief.
Discussions of sex offender registration take place against a backdrop of fear and loathing -fear that any change in law or practice that lifts registration requirements will result in great harm to society, and a sense that no restriction is too burdensome for someone who has committed a sex offense. Those on sex offender registries are seen as inveterate criminals who share essential character defects. Bolstering this view are the assumptions-widely shared and often cited by courts-that sex offenders re-offend at rates that are "frightening and high," Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 103 (2003) (quoting McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 34 (2002)), and that their risk of re-offense remains high even years after they have been living as law-abiding citizens of their communities. Id. at 104.
Studies show that these assumptions are wrong. Those required to register as sex offenders vary in their traits, life experiences, character, and re-offense risk. The vast majority do not re-offend. Moreover, a newly released offender's re-offense risk can be measured with simple actuarial scales, and that risk drops significantly for each year he spends in the community offense-free. Most offenders convicted before SORNA was enacted in 2006, and who have not re-offended ("pre-act offenders"), are therefore unlikely to commit a new sex offense. They are also unlikely to be free of registration requirements, even if petitioner prevails. States would require them to register, absent some considered policy decision to the contrary. We urge the Court and the parties to account for these facts and to focus on the merits of this case without the fear that clouds so many conversations about sex offenses.
Recommended Citation
Prescott, J. J., "Gundy v. United States: Brief of Scholars Whose Work includes Sex Offense Studies as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (2018). Appellate Briefs. 48.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/48
Comments
Amicus: Agan, Professor Amanda Ph.D.; Carpenter, Professor Catherine L.; Ellman, Ira; Hanson, R. Karl Ph.D.; Janus, Professor Eric; Leo, Professor Richard A. Ph.D.; Leon, Professor Chrysanthi Ph.D.; Levenson, Professor Jill S. Ph.D.; Logan, Professor Wayne A.; Prescott, Professor J.J. Ph.D.; Seto, Michael Ph.D.; Simon, Professor Jonathan Ph.D.; Slobogin, Christopher; Wollert, Richard Ph.D.; Zimring, Professor Franklin