Florida Action Committee (FAC)

SOURCE Connecticut is steps closer to potentially changing the way the state’s sex-offender registry is managed. The Connecticut Sentencing Commission is holding a public hearing Thursday and reviewing several proposed changes following a two-year study that began in 2015. “There was concern in the legislature, I think, that maybe Connecticut could find a better way to deal with sex offender

Boyd v. Washington is among the cases on tomorrow’s Supreme Court of the United States conference calendar. The question at issue in that case is “Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clause.” We are hoping the SCOTUS selects this case to be heard

SOURCE CRANSTON, R.I. — The settlement Wednesday of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, means there will be no cap on the number of sex offenders allowed to live at the Harrington Hall homeless shelter. This all stems from a state law that was set to take effect a year ago, limiting the number of sex offenders at Harrington hall

I hate it when ” journalists” interpret things in their own way, please read this story, I think it deserves a rebuttal..http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/bill-to-address-restoration-of-ex-cons-voting-rights i love the line ” except for murders and rapists ” TAMPA (FOX 13) – State Sen. Darryl Rouson (D-St. Petersburg) plans to file a bill in hopes of establishing order to the new amendment to the state

The Court had asked both sides (lawyers for the registrants and lawyers for the county) to submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law after the residency restriction trial in October. After a couple extensions, both sides submitted their pleadings last week, which can be read below: M-D – Finding of Fact – County M-D – Finding of Fact

Senate Bill 90, sponsored by Senator Lauren Book, contains an important observation from the Senator. The bill contains the following , “…recognizing that the parent-child relationship is the foundation of child well-being…” How ironic is it that this language would come out of a bill sponsored by a Senator who spearheaded several other bills seeking to destroy the parent-child relationship