Comments on: ACLU loses appeal in challenging sex offender GPS monitoring https://floridaactioncommittee.org/aclu-loses-appeal-challenging-sex-offender-gps-monitoring/ Reforming Florida’s Sex Offender Registry Laws Sun, 05 Mar 2017 00:39:22 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mike https://floridaactioncommittee.org/aclu-loses-appeal-challenging-sex-offender-gps-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-5499 Sun, 05 Mar 2017 00:39:22 +0000 https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=6065#comment-5499 In reply to Karen.

I have to agree with you Karen. If they had finished their sentence, it may have been decided differently. Not to ever deny that it is extremely embarrassing and possibly painful depending upon how it was placed on the leg. I think that a complaint about the pain it causes should be perused through the department of corrections.

]]> By: Karen https://floridaactioncommittee.org/aclu-loses-appeal-challenging-sex-offender-gps-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-5498 Sat, 04 Mar 2017 12:35:31 +0000 https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=6065#comment-5498 I do not agree with the GPS monitoring I am not surprised at this ruling. I think the difference (for the court) of being on probation or parole is the key. Hopefully, they would have found it punitive if it was after release from sanctions.

]]> By: rpsabq https://floridaactioncommittee.org/aclu-loses-appeal-challenging-sex-offender-gps-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-5497 Sat, 04 Mar 2017 08:17:31 +0000 https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=6065#comment-5497 Doesn’t seem like much can be done until a Court declares sex offender laws as punitive in nature. Until that is done it seems that Courts can’t justify making a favorable decision on our behalf.

]]> By: Joe123 https://floridaactioncommittee.org/aclu-loses-appeal-challenging-sex-offender-gps-monitoring/comment-page-1/#comment-5496 Sat, 04 Mar 2017 00:27:41 +0000 https://floridaactioncommittee.org/?p=6065#comment-5496 How is it NOT punishment to lock someone up if they forget to charge a device strapped to their leg?? This case would have had a better chance of winning if the defendents weren’t considered ‘high risk’. Not a good idea to try to change a law when your examples are people that are considered the ‘worst of the worst’ within a group that is already despised. They should have chosen Level 1 and Level 2 offenders, or low-to-medium risk. At least that would have put the judge at ease, and a higher chance to get a ruling that would have allowed for discretion to be used for all risk levels of offenders. The lawyers’ strategy here was not good and I hope they can appeal.

]]>