FAC Submits Comments to Proposed SORNA Changes
The following are the comments submitted by the Florida Action Committee to the proposed SORNA changes:
RE: DOCKET NO. OAG 157 – COMMENTS ON SORNA
I am President of the Florida Action Committee (FAC). We are a 2000+ member non-profit organization that advocates for public safety and laws based on empirical research. Among our members are persons required to register as sexual offenders or sexual predators in Florida.
Our organization is strongly opposed to the proposed changes to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) in their current form unless SORNA is amended to act as a ceiling and not a floor, when it comes to requirements imposed on persons required to register as sexual offenders.
In United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387, 398 (2013), the Supreme Court stated that SORNA reduced the duration of Kebodeaux’s registration requirement from the lifetime requirement imposed by Texas law, and reduced the frequency with which Kebodeaux must update his registration to every six months from every 90 days as imposed by Texas law. By now imposing requirements that are the greater of either federal, state or municipal laws, we create a huge disparity among people who were convicted of the exact same offense but who happen to live in different jurisdictions. That result is directly in conflict with the stated intent of SORNA, which is to create uniformity among jurisdictions.
Our organization sees first-hand the confusion created by having to navigate the state statutes, county and city ordinances and a federal Act when complying with “registration requirements”. These dramatically varying rules and restrictions often conflict with each other and confuse not only the individuals who must comply with them, but the agencies that must enforce them.
These new requirements impose vague additional requirements, which in Florida require in-person registration. For example, SORNA will now require that a sex offender who is not employed at a fixed location such as a landscaper or construction worker must provide authorities information describing where he/she will be working with whatever definiteness is possible. Will this require a daily trip to the sheriff’s office to announce a new site or route? These sort of requirements can preclude employment in certain fields altogether and we all know how difficult it is for people saddled with this stigma to secure employment to begin with.
Most importantly, in the fifteen years that SORNA has been in effect, there is zero (0) evidence proving its effectivity. Study after study presents no evidence that SORNA effectively reduces sex crime recidivism. In the absence of any proof that this is effective and in the face of so much evidence that registration only destabilizes and creates a barrier to successful reentry to a population that already has a low rate of recidivism, we strongly implore you to reconsider SORNA in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Gail Colletta, President
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good Day All,
I am very confused here…The aforementioned response has NO SPECIFICITIES?
Should not a response by FAC been a legal line by line response? Each item in the proposed changes should have had a lengthy SPECIFIC RESPONSE to each proposed change!
Without providing Specificity to each Line Item, well, the aforementioned response will just go into the Trash Pile. ‘THEY’ want actual legal responses to each proposed change!
SPECIFICITY IS THE KEY TO SUCCESS!
FAC has many legal eagles on the side, that could have taken parts of this trashy document and ‘sliced and diced it’ PROPERLY!
To the contrary. FAC is not a law firm. We are an advocacy group. Anything beyond a couple pages will likely be ignored anyhow
Do we know if there’s a page where we can view public comments to date?
Yes – Here: https://beta.regulations.gov/document/DOJ-OAG-2020-0003-0001/comment
Simply put, SORNA, and all it’s all-encompassing restrictions, requirements and guidelines will never, ever make the world a safer place for children. This is an incontrovertible fact. Full stop.
It’s too militant and ambitious. It’s more of a vessel for channeling outrage and hate than actual prevention. The ONLY thing it fosters in the minds of society is a false sense of relief.
It’s not even relief. Only reality-denying fools think it does anything useful.
The purpose is harassment. That is exactly all that most Registry Supporters/Terrorists want and care about. They have low self-esteem and low self-worth. Segregation and harassment make them feel better.
It does though do a fantastic job of giving out our personal information so the vigilantes can have an easy go at us whenever they please. All of them that have done so to me have not done so to my face but when I am gone they break my windows, have shot at my house on 3 occasions. People who do not even live on my street walk out of their way so their dog can crap in my driveway. When I call the police, I am told to fill out a useless incident report online.
Proposed Justice Department Changes to SORNA on 08/13/2020
My fear is the proposed rule changes will:
1. CODIFY AS LAW: The federal proposed rule occurs here in order to step-aside (sidestep) the criminal ex post facto prohibitions but also to move towards the barrinng of ex post facto application in CIVIL law;
The Constitutional Prohibition on Ex Post Facto Punishments
The Constitution presupposes that the government may punish people for actions that have been deemed criminal. However, the government’s authority to impose criminal punishment is subject to certain special constraints that may not apply to the government’s other powers. One such constraint is the Constitution’s ban on the adoption of “ex post facto Laws,” set out in its Ex Post Facto Clauses, one of which applies to the federal government and one to the states. U.S. Const., art I, §§ 9, cl.3, 10, cl. 1.1
CODIFY AS LAW: The federal proposed rule occurs here in order to recognize the culmination of non-punishments under the guise of public protection rules— violators having served their court ordered criminal sentences are then subject to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”) and state registration requirements, where registration serves as enforcement of the civil rules for the public safety, not to be mistaken as punishments …a proposed rule by the Justice Department on 08/13/2020.
EXTENUATION; THE STATES:
In the ensuing decades, however, the state legislative bodies repeatedly returned to the sexual offender registration statutes to change whom they reached, what they required, and how much protection they offered to registered offenders’ privacy.In short, each state’s sexual offender registration system progressed from a relatively simple system, dedicated to information gathering and tracking, into a far-reaching structure for regulating the conduct and lifestyles of registered sexual offenders after their punishments were complete and, in many cases, for the rest of their lives.
CODIFY AS LAW: The federal proposed rule occurs here in order to “simplify” the aim of state laws—i.e., minimum uniformity across all states and territories— however, ultimately the aim is to codify ex post facto application of law AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL in order to avoid suits directed at increased punishment after the fact, “…to set a base not a ceiling…”; as individual states may exceed these requirements.
U.S. Const., art I, § 10, cl. 1.
The Ex Post Facto Clause, on its face, contains no exceptions and makes no reference to the severity of either the crime committed or the punishment at issue. That is because the core interest protected by the Clause “is not an individual’s right to less punishment,” but rather the “lack of fair notice” given by the government. Weaver, 450 U.S. at 30. Accordingly, even an eminently reasonable punishment can violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if it was not authorized at the time that the underlying wrongful act was committed, and even a manifestly unjust and disproportionate punishment will find no obstacle from the Clause, as long as that punishment was authorized ahead of time. The Ex Post Facto Clause is concerned with timing and notice, not reasonableness in a larger sense.While the core prohibition of the Ex Post Facto Clause is straightforward, courts have long struggled with its outer boundaries. For example, it is accepted as axiomatic that the Clause “forbids the application of any new punitive measure to a crime already consummated, to the detriment or material disadvantage of the wrongdoer.” Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. 397, 401 (1937) (citing Kring, 107 U.S. at 228–29; Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 343, 351 (1898); In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 171 (1890)). Accordingly, a state could not retroactively turn a crime with a ten-year minimum sentence into one with a twenty-year minimum sentence.
The actual practice of criminal punishment, however, involves more than merely imposing a sentence dictated by statute. The punishment that a convicted defendant will actually receive involves an array of judicial and administrative determinations, including the selection of a sentence from a range of possible options, the calculation of actual days to serve, the availability of “good time” or other post-conviction reductions in time to serve, and, of course, the availability of parole and the procedures that govern parole determinations. Faced with changes in these secondary determinants of a defendant’s punishment, the Supreme Court’s “cases ‘have not attempted to precisely delimit the scope of”” the term “ex post facto law,” “but have instead given it substance by an accretion of case law.” Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530, 538–39 (2013) (quoting Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 292); see, e.g., id. at 544 (holding that retroactive application of change in Sentencing Guidelines violated the Ex Post Facto Clause); Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433, 446 (1997) (holding that retroactive cancellation of provisional early release credits violated the Ex Post Facto Clause); Morales, 514 U.S. at 514 (holding that retroactive application of law allowing for deferral of parole hearings did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause); Weaver, 450 U.S. at 36 (holding that retroactive application of statute reducing availability of good time credits violated the Ex Post Facto Clause).
Generally, the above information was gleaned and re-printed here, originally from Tennessee Case 3:20-cv-00050. HIGHLIGHTS, BOLDFACE, ITALICS ADDED; I attempt emphasis the law over rule.
Most of all the effectiveness observed by this subterfuge was found to be greatest when committed under the guise of rules and rules changes not LAWS.
Rules are impervious once written; DACA is a good example; as an Executive Order it still resists change/de-activation.
CODIFY AS LAW: to make ex post facto consideration a thing of the past. “If your offense was 40 years ago and you have not been required to register in your state, you would now be required to).” In as much as I have approached any ex post facto violation towards any conviction for a sex offense, convictions for acts prior to each respective state’s enactment of qualified registration law AND, increased sentence after the fact, I have approached ex post facto violations from as many angles as I could envision; however, the proposed rule changes include ANY ex post facto violation as non-violation of fact—in other words the defendant never gets to present statement of facts supporting an ex post facto violations. Remember time is relevant.
CODIFY AS LAW: minimum legal requirements NOT A UNIVERSAL CEILING; the meaning is each state, county, municipality and owners’ association, etc., can invoke stricter standards above the bottom. Persecution never ends, which is the synonymous definition of “punishment” according to Oxford University Press Dictionaries, Wikipedia 2020 and as we understand punishment;
Punishment
[ˈpəniSHmənt]
noun
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. Crime demands just punishment
synonyms: penalizing, punishing, disciplining, retribution, damnation, chastising, chastisement
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries© Oxford University Press
Persecution
[ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n]
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs. Her family fled religious persecution
synonyms: oppression, victimization, maltreatment, ill treatment, mistreatment, abuse, ill usage, discrimination, tyranny, tyrannization, punishment, torment, torture, pogrom, witch hunt, red-baiting, harassment, hounding, harrying, badgering, teasing, bullying, molestation
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries© Oxford University Press
Essentially the definitional confusion I face each time I have raised ex post facto violation as the constitutional prohibition relates to my case. The reason most likely underlaying each court rationalization seems to be intent; or, civil versus criminal arenas. Still, think government enforces both civil and criminal; the prohibition is toward government.
I am sure each of you have heard the phrase “Ignorance of the law is no excuse…” or words to that effect. This rule change will make that wordology LAW. Too bad you did not know of the rule change or your lack of knowledge is due to their failure to notify you of said change.
Think of the person walking around for forty years or more free from this registration punishment; yet, this rule change suddenly makes that person guilty of failure to comply. Automatically guilty--no trial--who here wants one?
I apologize for being tardy.
Well said Gail,
Let us hope they do not turn a blind and eye and fall on deaf ears. Seems the courts and lawmakers think we, and any attorneys that stick up for us, should have no say and pay for our crimes until our death. And in some cases like Florida, long after we die.
Many of us have cases going back 30 years and have not had a single mis-step, but with each new rule, law and ordinance, it becomes harder and harder to even just exist.
Eventually perhaps they will do like they did in Australia and send us all off to Sex offender island. We all know, hardly any law maker wants to look soft on sex offenders and are not willing to take the hit to stand up for what is right, pushing it off as “Someone else’s problem”.
Most lawyers I have talked to (Even ones I have known for years) have stopped taking sexual related cases as they are losing so many cases, even ones that are slam dunk for their clients. Mostly because of the stigma, the judges not wanting to “Go easy” on the sickos that we all seem to be portrayed as.
If this goes into effect, It basically keeps folks like me unemployed. Great for the system, not!
It’s already to the point, that I don’t really care.
Have more or less self isolated for about 20 years, not alot to live for.
Glad you are in the front lines, taking an interest of what happens to us.
Gail,
Well written!!