Comments on: 7th Cir. Affirms “sex offender” enhancement for non-sex-offender.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Tue, 25 Nov 2025 23:51:02 +0000

Going by this “logic”, local registration authorities should be required to register when create circumstances that make registration impossible, such as not being in the office during business hours or turning registrants away for arbitrary dress codes. That would also interfere with the enforcement of SORNA, would it not?

By: RM

RM — Tue, 25 Nov 2025 17:00:15 +0000

In reply to Roger. In Florida, similar conduct is also a state-level crime (3rd degree felony) punishable by up to 5 years in prison under F.S. sec. 943.0435(13). He only got 21 months under federal law. In Florida, he could have received 5 years in state prison for lying about the residence of a person forced to register.

By: RET. SGT. Vito

RET. SGT. Vito — Tue, 25 Nov 2025 16:01:09 +0000

It never ceases to amaze me how much more they drill this genre of “sex crimes” into the ground.

I had a compliance check a couple of days ago, one of the officers looked like if I didn’t have cameras on my property he would have beaten the piss out of me for no other reason than simply because of the SO status. Where’s that same anger for the child killers? Here’s a headline that caught my eye: “man 40, beats his fussy newborn to death in a drunken blackout” gets 11 years(ish)” and no registry. Come on. Make it make sense already.

By: Roger

Roger — Tue, 25 Nov 2025 15:06:49 +0000

So by saying a sex-offender lives at an address when one didn’t is a crime. So when the judge declares a non-sex-offender lives at that address wouldn’t he also be committing the same crime?