The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics

a commonly-cited statistic about sex offender re-offense rates is wrong.

Proponents of criminal justice reform never talk about sex offenders. They’re political untouchables subject to lifelong restrictions that continue long past their confinement, restrictions justified as necessary to protect the public from their propensity to re-offend. Two Supreme Court decisions established that justification. But they rely on a scientific study that doesn’t exist. 

"Frightening and High"

McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 33 (2002) rejected, 5-4, Robert Lile’s claim that Kansas violated his 5th Amendment rights by punishing him for refusing to complete a form detailing prior sexual activities that might constitute an uncharged  criminal offense for which he could then be prosecuted. The form was required for participants in a prison therapy program; refusing to join the program meant permanent transfer to a higher security unit where he would live among the most dangerous inmates and lose significant privileges, including the right to earn the minimum wage for his prison work and send his earnings to his family. Justice Kennedy explained the treatment program helped identify the traits that caused “such a frightening and high risk of recidivism” among sex offenders—a rate he said “has been estimated to be as high as 80%.”   The following year in Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) the Court upheld Alaska’s application, to those convicted before its enactment, of a law identifying all sex offenders on a public registry. It reasoned that the ex post facto clause was not violated because registration is not punishment, but merely a civil measure justified because the “risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders” is “frightening and high”, 536 U. S. at 34.

The idea that sex offenders repeat their crimes at high rates has fed legislation imposing increasingly harsh post-release burdens on them, nearly all triggered by being on a sex offender registry. Registrants may face residency restrictions sometimes severe enough to exclude them from entire cities and prevent them from living with their families, “presence restrictions” barring them from using public libraries or parks with their families, formal exclusion from many jobs, and informal exclusion from many more. The registration requirement typically extends for decades, and in some states, such as California, for life, with no path off the registry for most registrants. Courts have usually turned back challenges to registration and the consequences that flow from it; a Lexis search finds that in 91 cases the court’s opinion quotes Justice Kennedy’s dramatic statement that the sex offender recidivism rate is “frightening and high”. But is it? Do those convicted of sex offenses really re-offend 80% of the time, or anything close to that?

A "Statistic" With No Support

McKune provides just one citation for its much-quoted statement: a 1988 Justice Department “Practitioner’s Manual”. That reference likely came from the amicus brief supporting Kansas filed by the Solicitor General, then Ted Olson, which also cites it. This Practitioner’s Guide itself provides but one source for the claim, but it’s no scientific study. It’s a 1986 article from Psychology Today, a mass market magazine aimed at a lay audience, which had this sentence: “Most untreated sex offenders released from prison go on to commit more offenses–indeed, as many as 80% do.” Freeman-Longo, R., & Wall, R, Changing a lifetime of sexual crime, Psychology Today (1986). That sentence is a bare assertion with no supporting reference. Nor did its author have the scientific credentials needed to qualify at trial as an expert on recidivism.  He was a counselor, not a scholar, and the article containing the sentence isn’t about recidivism statistics. It’s about a counseling program for sex offenders he then ran in an Oregon prison. His unsupported assertion about the recidivism rate for untreated sex offenders was offered to contrast with his equally unsupported assertion about the lower recidivism rate for those who complete his program. 

So what is the re-offense rate for those convicted of a sex offense?  One cannot calculate it without first defining “re-offense,” without specifying the time period to employ, and without considering whether the categories of people these laws label “sex offender” all present the same risk level. Consider first what counts as a re-offense. If the purpose of the sex offender registry is to aid the police in investigating sex offenses, or warn the public about persons thought likely to commit them, then we want to know the rate at which those convicted of a sex offense commit another one. That’s different than the rate at which they commit any offense that returns them to prison. When the California Corrections Department recently examined cases of sex offender registrants returned to prison for a new offense, they found that in 88% of the cases, the new offense was a parole violation.  Parole violations are generally acts that aren’t crimes for anyone not on parole—things like going to a bar or visiting a friend who’s also an ex-felon. Only 1.8% of those re-incarcerated had committed a new sex offense. 

The time period also matters. The most cautious measure would ask whether an offender ever commits another sex offense, but there’s the disadvantage that a sample limited to deceased offenders would necessarily exclude most released in the past ten or twenty years. There are studies that track people for long periods, however, and a recent meta-analysis by leading scholar Karl Hanson combined the data from 21 studies which followed nearly 8,000 offenders for an average of 8.2 years, and as long as 31. Sixteen of the 21 studies tracked offenders in other western countries (most often, Canada), allowing us to measure the re-offense rate we get without the distinctly harsh American system of long sentences and post-release restrictions. The studies examined different populations of offenders; some might be expected to present a higher risk of re-offense than others. Hanson used a well-established risk measure, the Static 99-R, to sort the offenders into three risk categories. Nearly 20% of the high-risk offenders committed a new sex offense within five years of release, and an additional 12% did so during the next 10 years. But the 68% who hadn’t committed a new sex offense fifteen years after release rarely did later. Indeed, none of the high-risk offenders who were offense-free after 16 years committed a sex offense thereafter. 

This point is important because most people are typically put on registries for decades, and often for life; being offense-free for fifteen years or more won’t get them removed even though that history tells us they’re very unlikely to commit a new offense. Indeed, it’s mistaken to think of anyone offense-free for fifteen years as high-risk. At the time of their release we cannot tell which high-risk offenders will be among the two-thirds who won’t re-offend, but that is revealed over time. Those who haven’t re-offended after fifteen years are not high-risk for doing so.

And what about those who were not classified high-risk in the first place? About 97.5% % of the low-risk offenders were offense-free after five years; about 95% were still offense-free after 15 years. Some context can help here. About 3% of felons with no known history of sex offenses commit one within 4.5 years of their release. Of course, they’re not on the sex offender registry after release even though the chance of their committing a sex offense is the same or higher than the chance of a new sex offense by a either a low-risk offender, or a high-risk sex offender who has been offense free for fifteen years. What about the chance of a sex offender committing some other serious crime? Released sex offenders are actually less likely to commit a new felony of any kind, after release, than are other released felons.

Sex offender registries include a lot of people who are low-risk from the outset: a teenager who had consensual sex with another teenager, people who possessed erotic images of anyone under 18 but never even attempted to commit any contact offense, and even, depending on the state, someone convicted of public urination. A Justice Department study found that more than a quarter of all sex offenders were minors at the time of their offense. People may assume the registry’s purpose is to warn people about those who committed violent, coercive, or exploitative contact sex offenses, but they’re in fact filled up with people who never did any of those things.

Or, people who once did but are very unlikely to do so again because it’s been so long since they committed any crime. The Smith respondents who challenged the Alaska registry were classified as “aggravated” sex offenders, required under Alaska law to register four times a year for life, because they had been pled nolo contendere in 1984 to sexual contact with minors. Doe v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001).  They were released in 1990. One had completed a two-year post-release treatment program. The other had remarried and been granted custody of his daughter after psychiatric evaluations found he had "a very low risk of re-offending" and was "not a pedophile". Neither had re-offended in the twelve years since release, a fact that alone predicts a re-offense rate below 5%. Alaska posts the address and place of employment of all registrants “for public viewing in print or electronic form, so that it can be used by “any person” and “for any purpose.” Alaska Admin. Code tit. 13, § 09.050(a) (2000) as described in Doe v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001).

Why The Re-offense Statistic Matters to Courts

There’s a constitutional problem with rules that justify substantial burdens on large groups of low-risk offenders by mistakenly classifying them high-risk. In In the Interest of J.B., 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down state rules required by federal law that placed juveniles over 14 on the state registry for 25 years if they committed a rape or “aggravated indecent assault”. The rules’ rationale was the legislative finding that such offenders “pose a high risk of committing additional sexual offenses” but the court objected that this finding just wasn’t true of juveniles, and therefore unconstitutionally burdened their ability “to obtain housing, schooling, and employment, which in turn hinders their ability to rehabilitate.” The California Supreme Court used different labels but a similar logic when it held this year, in In re Taylor, 60 Cal. 4th 1019, that it was unconstitutionally irrational to automatically subject every sex offender parolee in San Diego County to residency restrictions that impeded their rehabilitation and left many of them with no place to live.  Once again, the problem with the statute was its application to every sex offender, without regard to their individual circumstances including an individualized assessment of each offender’s risk of re-offense. 

The logic of these decisions offers hope for a wider judicial rationalization of the rules on sex offender registries, but to realize that hope, one must apply the principle adopted by both the Pennsylvania and California supreme courts to a correct understanding of the facts. The principle is that public safety policies that restrict and burden individuals cannot be based on sweeping generalizations about the risk posed by anyone who commits an act that puts him on a sex offender registry, given the fact that the risk varies across individual registrants in ways we can easily assess, and also declines over time for any individual who remains offense-free. The burdens of registration must be targeted on those who are in fact high-risk. But while these recent decisions offer hope, the Pennsylvania opinion also illustrates the difficulty of getting courts to understand the facts well enough to apply them properly. It rejected the law’s application to juveniles because of their low re-offense rate of (“between 2-7%”), but it failed to understand that the re-offense rate for many if not most adults on the registry is within the same 2-7% range, especially if one includes adults who have been on the registry fifteen years without a new offense. 

Writing on a different subject entirely, Eula Biss recently observed:

Risk perception may not be about quantifiable risk so much as it is about immeasurable fear. Our fears are informed by history and economics, by social power and stigma, by myth and nightmares. And as with other strongly held beliefs, our fears are dear to us. When we encounter information that contradicts our beliefs, we tend to doubt the information, not ourselves.

The label “sex offender” triggers fear, and disgust as well. Both responses breed beliefs that do not yield easily to facts. That’s why even those politicians now urging criminal justice reforms conspicuously omit mentioning sex offenses when they argue for less punitive policies that would facilitate the offenders’ reintegration into civil society. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has fed the fear. It’s become the “go to” source that courts and politicians rely upon for “facts” about sex offender recidivism rates that aren’t true. Its endorsement has transformed random opinions by self-interested non-experts into definitive studies offered to justify law and policy, while real studies by real scientists go unnoticed. The Court’s casual approach to the facts of sex offender re-offense rates is far more frightening than the rates themselves, and it’s high time for correction. Perhaps there’s now hope it may soon happen. 

This is a condensation of an article that will appear in late 2015 in Constitutional Commentary. A more complete version with fuller documentation is available now at SSRN.

You have reached the End of the Article... But, read on...

I said, "The Next Right to stay on the pathway, not left you idiot!"

Apostle's Disclaimer Notice and other things

Contents & Links:

Some of the items you may come across requires Adobe ".pdf" reader.   If don't have Adobe Reader installed on your pc, click here to download it for free. You will need Adobe Reader to open pdf files. (Most pc's already have an Adobe Reader installed.) However, you may also wish to use Open Office which is another Free download that can be reached at: Which provides (for some people) a better way to create and manage documents as well as " .pdf " files and other items.

In due time we shall be using "zipped" files.  Most computers already have installed a ZIP FILE EXTRACTOR, however If you need a Zip utility program to unzip or extract zipped files, click here to download a free trial of WinZip.

Disclaimer Notice & Other things:

('s Note, Commentary, opinion & Disclaimer Notice: We Have many Contributors to our DAILY NEWS SERVICE, as well as many other Updates & Information provided - We are thankful for our Desert Angels, Our Flying Foxes, Our Flying Squirrels and our many other contributors... Even though we don't always give the credit they deserve... We want you, the viewer to know that they are a part of our life and living... They are, according to their nature & degree of ability, truly Christian in Spirit and in Truth for they have YOU, the viewer in mind as a part of their own concerns too, as we do too!


However... there is something else we wish to warn you about.


DISCLAIMER NOTICE: The views expressed at this website regarding any article not directly connected to religious content is the opinion or commentary of the author which we may not necessarily believe in, accept or support, and some religious articles we may not accept or support either. We take no responsibility or liability for the content of any news item or article presented as any information provided which you rely upon requires that you, the reader/viewer, take action to verify its worthiness on your own.  We have deduced to a minor degree, that the information provided by the author is such that warrants posting for you the viewer/reader only... and that any statements or purported facts, including any news item, is for you to verify as to its authenticity.  We take no liability and no responsibility for its accuracy whatsoever! You who are new visitors, may wish to read a very short article below entitled "The purpose for presenting our Daily News section" Sadly to say, we take no pleasure in stating that some of the items we post are not from what we would call true "Christian" organizations. But we post it because it provides another side of the proverbial story.  The Church, after all, is supposed to be a temple for sick souls (sinners) without distinction between their worse sins or otherwise, but it seems to some organizations that they say much about others, but fail and refuse to upbraid themselves and their members for their own sins...)


"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."


- Blessed St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco

The purpose for presenting this Daily News section:

Daily News is very important to those who are true Orthodox Catholic Christians.  For without knowing or gaining information for understanding about what is happening in one's local area and around the world, you could  find yourself faced with denied services in the secular area, lack of income, even (although it sounds far-fetched) ability to worship openly for the time is not far off when all will have to decide if they wish to follow the Anti-Christ through the One World Church and One World Government as prophesied by the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation of St. John or follow the faith delivered once and for all which will cause for many to be denied the abilities to survive under those kind of conditions, causing for one to consider other options. 


Many of those who subscribe to, and some who have caused or are the cause for, these things to happen are involved in or with the Roman Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church (which is not the seat of all things "Catholic") as well as its protestant daughters such as the cultic Jehovah's Witnesses, the Pentecostal Churches, the Church of Latter Day Saints also known as the Mormon Church and far too many more to list. 


Yet, at this web site we do provide some of the reasons about why they are opined to be the harbingers of that which is prophesied in Holy Scripture for the bringing about of the End Times which we have already entered.  It is not necessarily their individual members or parishioners that should be blamed since they are only the "Sheep" and not the Shepherds... So do not think we castigate individual people of themselves as we castigate those "money changers" who Jesus Christ chased out of His Father's House as the Bible Describes; for they exist in these present times too.


Events are already rushing toward that time in which this is beginning to happen and will become more fully wide-spread. In these present times all you need to really do is look around both your local and larger areas as to what is really on-going through.  Things so very little or miniscule that they are barely noticeable except to the more informed observer may become apparent. 

Those little things are the laws of the land, economics, politics, the degrading and erosion of those rights and liberties afforded by the Constitution of these United States of America and many other things such as the manner with which entertainments have taken over much of the populace, entering into and becoming a major focus in worship, and more. 

We ask you, if you don't want to believe us... Have you heard, seen or found what is termed (of the many terms being used) that there are "holding areas" or "camps" or "Closed/Fenced communities" being built by GOVERNMENT? 

Here in North America, especially in the United States of America, we must admit that what Russia has come out of (a communistic, atheist country) we are entering into.  And one last thing that needs also to be understood... Something very important to those of you who are "Catholic" in the Roman sense of its jurisdiction....   And, we believe this also holds true for many who are "Orthodox" whether "Eastern" or "Western"....

[ * Non-Denominational = Synchrestic Ecumenism, Disease of Scholasticism, altering the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ to accommodate the disease of Political Correctness and CULTIC PROTESTANTISM, and the Roman Jurisdiction (Latin Church = Vatican) of the Catholic Church) breaking of - or failure and refusal to respect and abide by  - the ancient Seven Ecumenical "Do Not" Canons which leaves everything else open to God's gift of creativity... failure & refusal to abide by and have respect for those who diligently protect one of the other Pillars of the Church, the Seals of the Confessional, but "Non-Denominational" also includes worshiping Satan's religion of Muslim, Islam by praying with them and other heretics such as 'Pentecostalism,' 'Jehovah's Witnesses,' 'Mormons,' 'Church of Christ,' any so-called church with "Community Church" in their nomenclature and others who by their false and misleading dogmas and doctrines are actually against the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ upon whom and for exacting reason we are called "Christian" in both spirit and truth from which non-denominational protestant sectarian claimants have departed from as being so-called Christian] Only a skilled spiritual father can help you!

Remember: You cannot ride two horses or serve two masters for one of them will be harmed by your thoughts, your very words and your actions which is to blaspheme the Holy Ghost (Spirit) who will depart from you.  And when the Holy Spirit departs, the great deceiver (unbeknownst to you) will rush in to fill the void under disguise of being the Holy Spirit!  Testing of the Holy Spirit to insure it is the Holy Spirit does not, for many a Sectarian Protestant and Roman, work because the Great Deceiver (Satan) is most skilled in worming and snaking his charms around your mind and heart to feign being the Holy Spirit.  Remember, Satan has the same gifts similar to the Holy Spirit but Satan's gifts are UN-HOLY and lead all who accept him (unbeknownst to you) to perdition.

About This Web Site  - About Who We Are  - Some of our Synod members & clergy   -   About Holy Orders & Institutions 

AOC/NAOC CODE OF CANON LAW   -    About Ancient Canons & Councils   = HIV/Aids and Cancer In America - A tribute  

 Apostolic Lines of Succession

A Message from our Spiritual Father  (constantly updated)   -   Abouna +Gregori's Own - Let The Truth Be Known  

- Clergy Database Information   

Messages from Father Lazarus

Many things relevant to the Life & Teachings of Jesus Christ  

Our Clergy Application & Agreement     Commemorations for the living and the reposed

Daily News   -  DCHN PRESENTATIONS   - Education & More  

Forgiveness - Christian Love - a different way of Praying the Our Father


Liturgies for All Occasions

Monastery of St. John Maximovitch and the Holy Theotokos (includes the Brotherhood & Community)

Notes From a Father's Heart

   On-Line Discussion Groups  -  Our Core Beliefs  -  Our Clergy  - 

Problems of Orthodoxy in the Americas - The Canonical Problem  

Quotes From Father +Thaddeus       Religious Products ??? 




Join: Apostle1group at

 Join the: Apostle1group


Join the: Apostle1 group at


"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was Orthodox for a thousand years, and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."

- Blessed St. +John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco


"Prejudice makes Prisoners of the Hated and the Hater" 

Metropolitan Archbishop +Joseph Thaddeus (1990)


Join Our Vladyka on Facebook where you may wish to ask him questions that are non-confrontational


Joseph Thaddeus

© 2008-2013 American Orthodox Church - North American Orthodox Church
International Communications Headquarters

All Rights Reserved

Mailing Address:  61 McCredy Ln., Wapato, WA. 98951

Telephone: (509) 584-0104


How Many Times?

TOTAL VISITORS since 1999:

Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter


Home Page