Attorneys argue· dueling studies

Attorneys argue· dueling studies
Attorneys on both sides of a lawsuit by a Hope doctor· seeking to overturn· a new state· on Medicaid practice· eligibility have· offered the federal judge· presiding in the case· dueling science· involved in the study· of repeat· offenses committed by registered offenders .
Attorneys on both sides of a lawsuit by a Hope doctor· seeking to overturn· a new state· on Medicaid practice· eligibility have· offered the federal judge· presiding in the case· dueling science· involved in the study· of repeat· offenses committed by registered offenders . Dr . Lonnie Joseph Parker is joined by patients , both women , in suing the Arkansas Department of Human Services to prevent· the enforcement· of Act 1504 of the 89 th Arkansas General Assembly , and seeks to overturn· the as unconstitutional under the U . S . Constitution . Act 1504 amends· Arkansas Code 12 – 12 – 913 (a) to open· access· to registration· records of the Arkansas Sex Offender Registry to the Division of Medical Services of the Department of Human Services for Medicaid provider· applicants , and prohibits anyone required to register· as a offender· on federal or Arkansas registries from providing goods and services through Medicaid . U . S . District Judge Billy Roy Wilson has taken arguments by both sides under advisement on the principal· issues , but has also called for submissions by both attorneys of scientific literature on recidivism rates among registered offenders . Parker , according to the federal court· filing , was convicted in federal court· in Arkansas in 2000 of possessing child· pornography and was sentenced to federal prison· , after which he was required to register· as a Level 1 offender· in Arkansas , indicating that he had no prior history· of such offenses . Parker also had his medical license to practice· in Arkansas restored by the Arkansas Medical Board in 2005 . Parker has maintained he is innocent· , and contended at trial· and on appeal· that he was acting in concert with federal authorities· in receiving and possessing certain child· pornography images via e-mail . In response· to Wilson’s order· on scientific literature , Parker’s attorney· , John Hardy , of Little Rock , argues that , while there are a number· of studies and reports on various· aspects of the subject· , one conducted for the U . S . Sentencing Commission as part· of a report· to Congress is exactly on point· . “The Commission selected 610 ‘non-production offenders’ sentenced during 1999 and 2000 for the study· from a total· of 724 offenders during that time· frame· , ” Hardy wrote . “’Non-production offenses’ include· distribution , transportation· (including shipping and mailing) , receipt , and possession· of child· pornography . “These 610 individuals were in the community· for a minimum of years· after release· from prison· or the commencement· of their probation , ” he continues . “They were tracked after release· from prison· for a minimum of years· with an average· follow-up of 8 ½ years· . 90.5 percent of them were sentenced to prison· (with an average· term· of 33 months) , with the other 9.5 percent receiving probation . “Dr . Parker was very likely a member of this cohort , ” Hardy states . Arguing from the Sentencing Commission Study as being the study· that is most on point· , Hardy writes that , “Plaintiff did not find· any specific studies concerning whether licensed physicians who have· previously been convicted of possession· of child· pornography were a danger· to their Medicaid patients or others . ” Arguing that the consensus of the studies he presents is that offenders with no previous criminal· history· or mental problems are , over time· , extremely unlikely to commit· a “contact sexual· offense· , ” Hardy points out that Parker has been out of prison· for nine years· . He argues that registered offenders are more likely to commit· “general recidivism , ” or non-sexual crimes , after release· than they are to commit· “sexual recidivism” , based upon the study· . “Under those classifications , the study· showed a general· recidivism of any kind· from all types of offenders of 30 percent ( 183 of 610 offenders) , while the sexual· recidivism rate· was 7.4 percent ( 45 of those 610 cases) , ” Hardy writes . DHS attorney· J . Mark White argues in his submission· that there is an underlying point· in all of the literature he cites that there is the presence· of a likelihood· of an unreported previous physical sexual· offense· for all offenders . White argues from the U . S . Sentencing Commission study· to make· that point· citing by reference· a “general recidivism” rate· of 30 percent among non-contact , non-production Internet child· pornography offenders sentenced between 1999 and 2000 . He notes that the “sexual contact· recidivism rate” among the entire· study· group· was 3.6 percent , but argues that of the subsequent offenders , 20.6 percent were arrested more than once , but he does not for what crimes . White argues the most extensively from an update in 2009 of a 2000 study· done at Butner Federal Prison , where inmates volunteered information concerning themselves . “Of the 155 convicted of child· pornography offenses in the study· conducted in the Butner federal prison· , 74 percent of the subjects had no documented history· of contact· sexual· offenses against minors , but by the of treatment· , 85 percent of the sample admitted having committed at least one hands-on sexual· offense· against a child· , ” White wrote . “ . . . Our findings show· that the Internet offenders in our sample were significantly more likely than not to have· sexually abused a child· via hands-on . ” Hardy takes issue· with the science· of the Butner study· , noting that prior to 2005 , it was the only study· widely available to federal authorities· , but that it was completely rejected by an Iowa federal judge· in U . S . v . Johnson (S . D . Iowa 2008 ) . Quoting the ruling , Hardy writes , “The Court will not accept· science· conducted in secret· . Second , the Court will not look· past· the shortcomings of this Study merely because the Study is unique· or new . . . In , the Court will not consider· the results of the Butner Study unless and until either the Government or the researchers provide· transparency· for its methodology and a compelling explanation· for its many apparent· failings . ” Wilson has not said when he will rule· on the preliminary injunction motion· by Parker .
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s