Excellent decision out of Alabama Federal Court
An excellent decision out of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (which happens to be in our Federal 11th Circuit).
A copy of the decision follows and is shared in the interest of time – interpretation will follow.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/02/10/michigan-ag-dana-nessel-does-the-unthinkable-argues-the-truth-about-sora/
Thanks for the link. A GREAT blog post from Guy Hamilton-Smith concerning the AG Nessel filing. Well worth the time to read.
This is great and of course great for Florida because it’s in the 11th circuit, but I can assume this would be appeal first to SCOTUS before it makes any impact here.
Sorry, appeal to the 11th circuit.
That is what I was thinking as well. Hopefully it gets appealed quickly to the 11th, rule in our favor and sets the precedence.
Dear Debbie, If this is appealed, it will go to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals before SCOTUS.
Yes, I noticed that right after. Thank you Bill.
Also, since it’s already in circuit, we need not wait on a Court of Appeals ruling for it to be relevant today.
I love the reasoning of this Court, especially citing existing case law on forced speech, such as license plates that carry a message that you are unconstitutionally forced to display. Love that they flat out declared 2 parts of Alabama’s law unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the state will undoubtedly appeal the decision, so the issue is not yet settled. Have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that this legal argument stands up to higher scrutiny.
Louisiana also has one pay to have the branding on state id cards along with ones drivers license. And, you must have both alone with having it renewed yearly. It also costs more than a regular license.
This protects no one.
The old story of the Scarlet Letter
It is a GREAT decision!!! They don’t do this to any other group of people arrested because it would be unconstitutional…..
Glad to see a court quoting facts as opposed to parroting fictional propaganda; i.e., “frightening and high recitivism”.
“The failure to account for risk is a problem throughout ASORCNA. Not all *29 sex crimes are the same.
Nor are all offenders the same. Instead, as Dr. Karl
Hanson explains (Docs. # 159-1, 159-2, 159-3), one
can classify sex offenders based on their risk of committing another sex offense (“sexual recidivism”).6
Some offenders have a low risk of sexual recidivism;
others have a medium or a high risk. Also, the older
someone gets, and the longer they go without committing a new crime, the less likely they are to reoffend. At a certain point, “most individuals convicted
of a sexual offense will be no more likely to commit
another sexual offense than the rate of spontaneous
‘out-of-the-blue’ sexual offenses in the general population.” (Doc. # 159-1, at 5.) Low-risk offenders cross
that threshold upon release from prison. Medium-risk
offenders cross it ten to fifteen years later. Even high risk offenders, after twenty years offense-free, pose no
more of a threat to the public than does the average
man walking down the street. (Doc. # 159-1, at 7-14.)”
Now if we can just get courts to act on these facts.