Pentlarge and Another v. Sex Offender Registry Board et. al.
GLAD has filed an amicus brief in this case on appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concerning the Commonwealth’s Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) and the process by which it classifies offenders with respect to risk of re-offense and the public dissemination of information about them. The Massachusetts Superior Court dismissed the entire complaint, including those claims of plaintiffs Joel Pentlarge and W.S. that their classifications as to level of risk were carried out in violation of their right to due process. Specifically, they claim that the factors used to assess risk by and large have no predictive ability according to current scientific studies.
GLAD’s brief supports the plaintiffs’ position that the current process used by the SORB in determining classification is contrary to science and thus arbitrary and capricious and violative of the plaintiffs’ due process rights.
GLAD’s brief makes two arguments. First, in light of a May 2010 decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board, the plaintiffs’ ages - 56 and 71 respectively - should have been included as a significant factor in assessing their risk of re-offense at the time of their initial hearings. Failure to do so requires reversal of their classifications.
Second, GLAD argues that research and expert opinion presented in the plaintiffs’ case demonstrates that most of the factors included in the SORB’s current regulations are now considered unreliable in the scientific community and are no longer relevant in determining a person’s risk of re-offense. As a result, the plaintiff’ complaint should not have been dismissed; and their claim should be returned to the Superior Court for development of the evidence and possibly a trial.
The case was heard before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on January 3, 2011.