Reply To: Federal judge in Indiana holds mandatory “sex offender” classes unconstitutional

#25095
Avatar
WC_TN

There is none so blind as he who will not see. Robert E. Freeman-Longo, the author of that infamous article in “Psychology Today” which started the “frightening and high” LIE the U.S. Supreme Court has held on to since McCune v. Lyle is not going anywhere anytime soon. This man, as well as Barbara Schwarz, the psychologist who wrote the 1980 D.O.J. manual who cited Freeman-Longo’s article have since said their works were pulled out of thin air with no legitimate research to back them. When you write a manual with only 6 references to go on, one of which is the dictionary and the other is an outright lie told by a man with a financial interest in peddling his sex offender treatment program; an article for which there was NO peer review or any other standard of scientific verification and the highest court in the nation runs with it and returns to it time after time, I start thinking that when it comes to us, the truth does not matter.

The Supreme Court defies logic. They made two wonderful rulings recently:
(1) Packingham v. North Carolina (even though that “frightening and high” lie polluted the courts ruling…)
(2) Refusing to hear Michigan’s appeal of the 6th Circuit ruling which declared retroactive application of the registry and its restrictions as punitive and a violation of ex post facto.

Then comes the request for SCOTUS to review the decision overturning a lower federal court who ruled Minnesota’s civil commitment program unconstitutional. The court declines to hear that case and in view of the 2 previous rulings I cited above it just does not make any legitimate legal sense. This makes me think that when it comes to major cases like depriving someone indefinitely of liberty based on the frightening and high myth that has been soundly disproven time and time again, it makes me think the justices vacillate between being serious justices and judges of law and outright judicial activists and politicians who pander to the states. It’s as if they sat back and said, “We’ll be going against this court’s own past rulings if we grant review. The people in those states who have had civil commitment for so long will be ready to revolt if we rule against these programs and we’ll force them to do something immensely politically and socially unpopular. We’ll also be in the cross-hairs of an irate public, so we’re not going to touch this issue with a 50-foot pole! If one’s very freedom is denied based solely on fear and moral outrage after they have served the prison sentence imposed by the court does not deserve the highest court’s strictest and unrelenting scrutiny, then nothing does.