You see Patch for what they are, which is not much— a lot of their reporting seems automated or outsourced. Yet every October they are a plague.

I don’t even know what they mean by “sex offender advocates.” The position of FAC, ACSOL, and NARSOL and it’s affiliates is that sex offending is never ok. As long as media outlets refer to these orgs in this way, the battle is going to be difficult and slow.

FAC is a public safety advocacy organization. We advocate for ACTUAL safety, not the feeling of safety. But it’s hard to educate Patch on that when there’s hardly anyone there it seems.

The article on Patch.com that I was referring to is:

https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/10/for-patch-local-sex-offender-maps-are-a-halloween-tradition/#disqus_thread

Patch states that it offers links t op-ed’s written by “sex offender advocates” who oppose Patch. (I have not encountered one of their articles that had such an op-ed.)

Patch also states that they use data-driven reports. (The only data-driven reports I found were law enforcement maps of where registrants live.)

Patch states that its goal is to simplify access to publicly local registry information. (The process is already simplified — just google the map.)

I had never heard of Patch until a month ago, and I can find no useful purpose for this group. One day I started wondering why such a website even exists. Even if I were one of the people who believed the “stranger danger” myths out there, I would never use Patch.com because what they offer, which is very little, is already out there. So why does this website even exist? Then I realized what is probably fueling this group — money. They are exploiting registrants to fatten their own wallets.

This article also states that the number of different types of registries is growing. Utah now has a white collar crime registry. Why are registries growing, when the article itself states that there is no evidence that registries work? It has to be about the money.

This Wisconsin article is a journalistic gem.

And yes, I have often sensed a different view of registries by the younger generation. Perhaps because of the awareness of how their lives could have been destroyed by consensual sexting. Or because they don’t remember a time when registries weren’t harming families. Or because they’re simply lest trusting of authority. For whatever reason, they just seem to see through it all.

I had a neighbor here in Georgia that is designated a predator simply because he was convicted in Florida, was homeless for a while, and was specifically prevented from updating his registry info by the sheriff’s office he was to register in (they told him he had to pay a $250 fee which he didn’t have – again, homeless – and chose not to waive it).

Posted in the comments on that article:

“A majority of the time there are very few sex offenses that happen as a result of trick-or-treating or as a result of Halloween,” Knutson said.

Umm, “very few” as in ZERO? The only instance of a sex crime occurring on Halloween was by Gerald Turner in 1972. But he had no priors at the time and wouldn’t have been subjected to the idiotic Halloween rules (and laws, in some states), so his crime would have occurred anyway. Not to mention that no one thought such rules were necessary until 30 years afterward.

Registration schemes are set up specifically to keep a socially and politically disfavored group of citizens running in and out of jail/prison. Nearly all registrant recidivism is for status crime (applicable only to registrants) as opposed to another sex offense or crime of any other kind. And for the very few and far between registrants that actually reoffend, the registry plays no role in investigation; they’re identified on the spot and their registry status is never known until after they are arrested.

Laws and rules specifically applied to sex offender registrants are incredibly discriminatory, shown by substituting the word “black” for “sex offender” (or equivalent phrase) in any of them. The oxymoronic claim that registrants aren’t a protected class is itself discriminatory. The whole point of anti-discrimination laws is to ensure politically and socially disfavored groups and individuals get fair treatment in law (if not in society), something very few registrants receive.

Here is a link from a student newspaper that serves the University of Wisconsin, financially and editorially independent of the university.

Since my generation cannot seem to get it right, there might be hope in the younger generations. This student journalist bases her decisions on evidence-based facts.

This is also one of the few papers and other “news” outlets that actually allow for comments, but unfortunately they have to be through a social media account.

https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2019/10/doc-seeks-media-coverage-of-home-visits-to-registered-sex-offenders-on-halloween

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/us/georgia-sex-offenders-trick-or-treat.html

Judge has NOT opined that predator designation would require Halloween sign. He only pointed out that that issue has not yet been properly argued before him and left open the possibility.

Even then, the issue might not apply to a Florida predator, unless Florida uses an identical definition as Georgia. As you have pointed out, a Florida predator designation entails no risk assessment at all, and this just appears to ding the Butts sheriff for failing to demonstrate risk.

A few counties place signs in predators’ yards. Year-round, that is. I think. Nassau, Bradford, to my recollection.

A shame because, among all those who are preying on victims, it’s almost NEVER someone labeled “sexual predator” by Florida law.

If I’m correct, don’t go house hunting in Bradford or Nassau, please.