Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears challenge to SORB risk finding after expert research on exclusive vs. nonexclusive pedophilia
Summary
A petitioner before the Appeals Court argued the Sex Offender Registry Board ignored empirically validated research showing different recidivism risks for exclusive versus nonexclusive pedophilia; the board and its counsel said the hearing examiner considered the evidence and applied statutory factors.
A petitioner on the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry sought relief in the Appeals Court, arguing that the hearing examiner and the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) ignored new, peer‑reviewed research and thus denied the petitioner the due‑process right to an individualized risk hearing.
Elizabeth Caddock, counsel for the petitioner identified in court as John Doe, urged the panel that updated research — some published after SORB revised its regulations in 2016 — distinguishes “exclusive” pedophilia (persons attracted solely to children) from “nonexclusive” pedophilia (persons attracted to children and adults), and that the re‑offense risk for nonexclusive pedophiles is no…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
