The Sex Crimes Panic

I have a new paper on SSRN regarding the seemingly endless fascination of American legislators with sex crimes.  Here is the abstract:

Sex crimes continue to be a matter of intense legislative interest at both state and federal levels of government, as evidenced by a flurry of recent enactments expanding sex offender registration requirements, prohibiting sex offenders from participating in “Halloween-related” activities, and facilitating the exclusion of sex offenders from social networking websites. Although legislative activity in the area of sex crimes has gone through regular phases of high and low intensity across the past century, the current high-intensity phase, dating from the 1980s, has lasted an unusually long time. Moreover, this high-intensity period displays the characteristics of what historians and sociologists have termed a “moral panic,” marked particularly by the rapid adoption of many new laws that seem poorly designed to achieve their community-protection aims. This Essay, which introduces a forthcoming issue of the Federal Sentencing Reporter devoted to recent developments in the punishment and management of sex offenders (Vol. 21, Issue 2), offers a critical overview of the new laws and considers why the sex crimes panic has proven so much more durable than the crack cocaine panic, which also arose in the 1980s.

Laws aimed at controlling sex offenders are invariably couched as child-protection measures — and, really, who can vote against protecting children? — but pay little attention either to the social scientific evidence regarding the greatest threats of sexual violence to children (family members and acquaintances, not the random strangers caught in the ever-widening web of sex-offender registration laws) or to the possibility that scarce criminal justice resources are being increasingly diverted from more productive uses to dubious new social control measures.  Sex offenders, of course, will draw no public sympathy when it comes to legislative overreaching, but in the current fiscal climate all taxpayers have an interest in ensuring that new laws are cost-effective responses to serious social problems.  And, as the New York Times recently reported, fiscal concerns seem to be driving a backlash against one of the more misguided recent enactments in this area, the so-called Adam Walsh Act.

Continue ReadingThe Sex Crimes Panic

RIP, RJN

When Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a priest of the Archdiocese of New York and editor-in-chief of the journal FIRST THINGS, passed away in January, numerous glowing tributes to his life and work poured forth.  Appreciation for his contributions emerged from all sectors — leaders from America’s religious, political, and academic communities praised his intellectual work and his pastoral nature. Yesterday, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit delivered a lecture at the University of Minnesota School of Law entitled “The Influence of Richard John Neuhaus on Religion in the Public Square.” Her thoughts, and hopefully those of others as well, will analyze and honor the tremendous impact Fr. Neuhaus had specifically on America’s law and jurisprudence. His 1984 book The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America coined the phrase that defined the effort by some to drive religious dialogue and values out of America’s public discourse. The book is the starting point for efforts by people of faith to defend moral and religious arguments in public policy discussions (Westlaw finds over 250 uses of the phrase in its journals database).

In 1996, his journal, FIRST THINGS, published a symposium entitled “The End of Democracy? Judicial Usurpation of Politics”. Contributors included Robert Bork, Chuck Colson, Robert George, and Hadley Arkes. The symposium began with a very straightforward and intentionally shocking question question: “The question here explored, in full awareness of its far-reaching consequences, is whether we have reached or are reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral assent to the existing regime.” The editorial introducing the symposium gave a tentative answer as well: “What is happening now is the displacement of a constitutional order by a regime that does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people.” The symposium launched a heated debate about the role of judges in a constitutional republic, and remains a standard reference point in the modern intellectual discussion of “judicial activism.”

Continue ReadingRIP, RJN

Sports Paternalism

Matt Mitten has an interesting new paper on SSRN entitled (this is a mouthful!) “Student-Eligibility Rules Limiting Athletic Performance or Prohibiting Athletic Participation for Health Reasons Despite Medical Uncertainty: Legal and Ethical Considerations.”  The paper discusses two policy problems in intercollegiate athletics that both turn on how much paternalism is appropriate in preventing student-athletes from doing things that may ultimately prove harmful to themselves. 

The first problem is use of steroids.  Although performance enhancing drugs are often condemned for giving some athletes an unfair advantage, Matt suggests that unfair advantages are an unavoidable feature of intercollegiate athletics, noting, for instance, disparities in coaching and training facilities.  Moreover, after reviewing the medical evidence, Matt concludes that “currently there are no definitive scientific or epidemiological studies evidencing that a healthy adult’s usage of anabolic steroids in appropriate dosages necessarily will have life-threatening or long-term serious health effects.”  But, of course, the absence of conclusive evidence of danger does not mean that steroids are safe.  Given uncertainty, the question is whether athletes should be permitted to decide for themselves whether to bear the risk.

The second problem is participation by student-athletes suffering from a medical condition (e.g., a spinal or cardiovascular abnormality) that may give rise to increased risks of serious or life-threatening injury.  Again, the question is one of paternalism in the face of medical uncertainty: should the athlete himself or herself be given the right to decide whether to bear the risks?  As with the steroid issue, Matt ultimately concludes that the NCAA and individual universities have “valid legal and ethical authority” to protect student-athletes from themselves.

Continue ReadingSports Paternalism