Fort Lauderdale to vote on change in sex offender restrictions
Fort Lauderdale will decide Tuesday whether to allow sex offenders to legally live in more of the city’s neighborhoods.
Commissioners will hold the final vote to relax the city’s restrictive sex offenders law, allowing them to live close to bus stops but still barring them from living within 1,400 feet of a school, daycare and other places children gather. The change would expand the available housing for convicted offenders from 1.4 percent of the city to 15.3 percent.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speaking of things goin on in Broward county, what’s goin on with Ron books DUI case?
still pending.
His attorneys are deposing everyone at the scene.
Any updates that FAC can share as to Ft.Lauderdale’s vote yesterday?
Anywhere but Florida i would have hope but things continue to get worse in this stat not better
Why would you want that for? To get worse.You should be thankful that you have People you don’t know fight for your rights! Good Job Gail and FAC Gang your tired and unselfish actions made it possible for people to be given sencond chances in life
You don’t have to be grateful that people unlike you are fighting or your so-called rights. The people running such organization think you are damaged goods and that what you did is wrong. You must first realize what you did may not have been wrong at all. Your defense must not rest with such organizations.
If you believe FAC leadership judges its members, then I would maintain that you haven’t been paying attention!
The problem with fighting this thing in the courts is that it implies agreement with the morality of sex offender laws in the first place.
In that sense there is no hope. It does not matter really whether one state is harsher than another. The legal issue is downstream. Fiddling over laws is like deciding which cage to put an animal in the zoo in.
The important issue is the that the basis of the sex offender laws is wrong. There is no harm and considerable good from intergenerational love. Repression of sexuality by sick people in our governments is the issue.
Victims of the sex terror must first decide they have done nothing wrong if their relationship has been consensual. They must not accept the government’s repression of natural human sexuality then put themselves in the self-defeating position by arguing that the punishments for violating bad laws are too harsh.
Once they open their eyes and look at the evidence and conclusions about child sexuality from Freud, Reich, Menninger, Kinsey, Rind and others, they can stand on firm footing.
FAC opposes sexual abuse and misconduct. Seeing FAC’s own platform used to make suggestions to the contrary, troubles and disturbs me. I suspect I’m not alone in this.
Does this apply to out of state visitors? Because that would clearly violate the Interstate Commerce Clause
It applies to out-of-state registrants who are staying at the same local address for more than three days in the calendar year.
Three or more
That’s interesting, you’d have to live in Florida 183 days out of the year to be a resident for Tax Purposes. I think there’s a compelling case that neither the state, county, or city can limit the activity of people who are legal residents of another state. And Interstate Commerce Clause cases love admitting scientific evidence to try and justify restrictions but in this case the evidence points against the regulation AND the Constitution prevents anyone but Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
So you find a defendant in another state, who has lawful business in a restricted part of Florida, and walk him into the nearest Federal Court. And the federal government has a climactically broad definition of business.
Now, if you won of course it would only relieve out of state visitors, but that decision should include a statement that there is no demonstrable reason for the restrictions in the first place, that you then parlay into a fresh challenge against in state restrictions.
That is the intention of FAC’s Out-of-State Challenge. We just need to fully fund it.
So long as they check in after 3pm on, say, a Friday, and check out before noon the following Monday, then that 69 hours by itself does not trigger the three-day requirement, am I right?
Thinking back to the statute, which you pointed out does not define “day,” and FDLE’s filing in our ex post facto plus challenge, where they argue that there is no novel definition of day. Both of which I believe put to rest an urban legend about any fraction of a calendar day equaling one day. True?
I realize that we cover this topic a lot, but I think it’s worth it!
Which im still getting grief from vcso: i go on say im going for three days but since i teturn the night of the third they tell me no need for paper. Im not on any supervison or anything. And now a fingerprint for everything as well….
Isn’t this the same sex offender residency restriction that was already held to be unconstitutional by a state circuit court judge in Broward County?
Yes and no. The SORR cannot be enforced against people whose offenses pre-date the ordinance (2007). It can be enforced against people after. Now people AFTER get the benefit of this change.
I’m in central Fl and have lived right next to a public park for 15 years. Its insane they cant live near these places. Clearly I am proof that it does not even come close to raising any re offence rate. If your no dangerous you can live in the park with no issues. But of your a true predator it dont matter if they put you on an island. You’ll find a way to reoffend. It’s the risk assessment that’s missing in my opinion. That and the lack of way to prove your not dangerous.
“It’s the risk assessment that’s missing in my opinion. That and the lack of way to prove your not dangerous.”
I agree in part but would like to add to this.
Rather than go on a case by case basis, our Courts go by the blanket that law makers have (and continue to add to) composed. The one size fits all that most registrants living in Florida are subject to. Technically the Court ordered therapy that is mandatory for anyone on sex offender probation involves a risk assessment.
ITM has the current contract with the state, for sake of argument I have only these sessions in mind.
Is it effective?
In a word… Hardly. This is for the same reason that the blanket laws are ineffective. Sheer volume. Those that would need the monitoring/intensive therapy are overlooked. You have a corporation running things. Even so there are only so many people within that corporation that would be able to conduct an realistic risk assessment due to a corporate atmosphere, i.e; one less individual in therapy for indefinite years = how much lost revenue?
Also factor in if one of the (very) few individuals who go on to commit another crime? The therapist who “let the offender get off early” would be strung out to dry by the media, politicians, etc.
Unfortunately, this current clusterfuck is unlikely to end anytime in the forseeable future due to the political nature of this state. As long as this area is the Fear button for politicians and the money maker for countless others it is unlikely to change. Most anyone reading this who is having to live under the “civil” laws of Florida already knows this.
However, I’d like to add a takeaway here. Don’t lose hope, don’t give up. Educate yourself within the laws that effect you. Educate others about these laws. Share the wealth of information provided by FAC, narsol, etc. with others. I have found most people that I have shared with are willing to listen and are somewhat awestruck at how absurd things are in light of factual evidence regarding those with sex crimes in their past.
ok, my offense here is 1988, what restrictions do i have when visiting florida
thanks
1994 conviction
were you off probation prior to 1997?
no , i was off probation in 1995 due to a revocation that went all the way to scotus. i was sentenced to 3 years prison, off parole 2005
it took them 8 years to go through the courts. i was reading if offense was before 1997?
What does 1997 have to do with anything? Just curious? I got off probation in 1998..