MAP Forum

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 higher than for other offenders against minors. She told the court those empirically validated studies should trigger SORB’s regulatory obligation to consider them under factor 35/37 of the SORB rubric.