Once again we find the United States government officials have provided false information to the United States Supreme Court to justify the existence of unconstitutionally discriminatory laws, this was also just what they did in the case of the Japanese-Americans interned to the relocation camps during World War II.
The decision in Korematsu v. United States has been a very controversial one. Korematsu’s conviction for evading internment was overturned on November 10, 1983, after Korematsu challenged the earlier decision by filing for a writ of coram nobis. In a ruling by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the writ (that is, it voided Korematsu’s original conviction) because in Korematsu’s original case the government had knowingly submitted false information to the Supreme Court that had a material effect on the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Korematsu decision has not been explicitly overturned although, in 2011 the Department of Justice filed official notice conceding that it was in error, thus erasing the case’s value as precedent for interning citizens. However, the Court’s opinion does remain significant, both for being the first instance of the Supreme Court applying the strict scrutiny standard to racial discrimination by the government, and also for being one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government met that standard.
U.S. official cites misconduct in Japanese American internment cases
Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal says one of his predecessors, Charles Fahy, deliberately hid from the Supreme Court a military report that Japanese Americans were not a threat in World War II.
May 24, 2011|By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau
Reporting from Washington — Acting Solicitor Gen. Neal Katyal, in an extraordinary admission of misconduct, took to task one of his predecessors for hiding evidence and deceiving the Supreme Court in two of the major cases in its history: the World War II rulings that upheld the detention of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans.
Now someone has looked into the information that was provided to the United States Supreme Court in Smith v. Doe and found that the government officials have done the same thing again to justify a discriminatory practice against a class of people, they have used falsified information and hearsay not based on any reliable studies that were available, even at that time. It should be noted that there are studies going back to the 1960s . For example, the 1962 Jack study, as cited in Furby, Weinrott & Blackshaw, “Sex offender recidivism: a review”, in 1989 looked into non-treated offenders showed the re-offense rate of 3.7% over 15 years, that’s 2/10 of 1% per year. Another interesting facet of the Furby study is how their comment was taken out of context.since the study was to see the effectiveness of treatment programs on sex offenders. People point to the first portion of the comment “there is as yet no evidence that clinical treatment reduces the rate of sex offense.” Furby and her colleagues second portion of the statement have been omitted from the most other reports, Where they stated: “The recidivism rate of treated offenders is not lower than that for untreated offenders; if anything, it tends to be higher. quite simply meaning that the treatment programs increase the possibility of re-offense. It is now known that as a whole people on the registry have a re-offense rate in new sex crimes of less than 6/10 of one percent. (Nebraska sex offender registry study july 31 2013).
‘Frightening and High’: The Frightening Sloppiness of the High Court’s Sex Crime Statistics
Ira Mark Ellman
Arizona State University College of Law; Arizona State University (ASU) – Department of Psychology; Center for the Study of Law and Society, Berkeley Law, University of California, Berkeley
Independent June 8, 2015
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.
In filing a petition for writ of error coram nobis in Smith v. Doe, it should be noted there is a conflict of interest involving the Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts was the government attorney that withheld information or presented false/ misleading recidivism information that is the crux of the error, i.e., there the claim of high re-offense rates. There was enough studies pre-Smith v. Doe to show that the correct recidivism information was out there, and the information that they use from the Prentky study was incorrect and the other information that they used to support their case was hearsay, not based on any valid scientific study.
So from where I stand with the above information, I believe it is time to call an accounting of the Supreme Court decision that was based on lies presented by the Solicitor Gen. in the Smith versus Doe case , and that the Department of justice be held accountable for all of the collateral damage to offenders and their families caused by government officials misinformation that was presented to the Supreme Court.