Reply To: California IML challenge dismissed as premature

#9231
Avatar
Solicitor General error correction

There is a way to possibly correct the prevailing “high recidivism” thought train with SCOTUS.

As has been noted many times previously, the “high recidivism” rate was provided by the USG’s Solicitor General (SG) as noted in an “‘Frightening and High’: The Supreme Court’s Crucial Mistake About Sex Crime Statistics” (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616429) to SCOTUS for use in their considerations of the case at the time.

Come to find out, there is a way for this error could be possibly corrected as noted in this article “Inside the Supreme Court’s little-known revision process” (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/inside-supreme-courts-little-known-revision-process/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=pbsofficial&utm_campaign=newshour&_utm_source=1-2-2)

The question becomes does the Atty General (AG) get petitioned to correct the error if enough people contact them or if an online petition is submitted with an atty generated letter asking the AG to correct the error through the SG? Is it that simple? SG works for the AG by the way. Obviously there is enough data to overcome the “high recidivism” rate thinking. If they can correct a 200 year old error, see the PBS article, then there should be no reason why they cannot correct an error 13 years later.

Of course, in the end, you are asking the SG to acknowledge their own error and correct it. Have to wonder if that would get any traction and action.