Florida sex offender law: Swimming pool rules spark debate
lorida law already banned sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, and playgrounds. The latest restriction extends that 1,000-foot exclusionary zone to include public swimming pools and splash pads.
The primary House sponsor, State Rep. Rachel Plakon (R-Seminole), stressed that the new law targets specific offenses. As written, it applies to offenders who have committed crimes against a minor. This can include repeat sexual predators as well as individuals convicted of a single offense.
While the bill passed with overwhelming support, a vocal minority of critics — including a handful of state lawmakers, the libertarian Reason Foundation, and some child victim advocates — warn the legislation could backfire and undermine public safety.
Because swimming pools are prevalent in Florida subdivisions, apartment complexes, and mobile home communities, critics argue the law will severely limit compliant housing options.
Critics express severe concern over the real-world impact of the law. House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell said, “Any time that I see that the staff is contradicting what the bill sponsor is trying to do, my antennae go up. … The fact the legislature passed this bill even knowing that there were these concerns should be a red flag to everybody.”
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz of the Reason Foundation stated, “Making it harder for them to get housing is really the opposite of a public safety strategy. It will undermine public safety. You can’t monitor people if they’re effectively off the map.”
Child victim advocate and sex crime survivor Gretchen Casey noted, “Generally, people don’t commit crimes of a sexual nature in public areas, okay. They do it where there is less likely to be, perhaps, a witness.”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why can’t legislators, cops, judges, social workers and the public in general understand this simple, common sense concept that The Reason Foundation brought forth? It is clear, concise, and so easy to put into action. It would also eliminate the need for a good majority of useless, punitive residency restriction laws already on the books in most, if not all states.
As quoted from article above:
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz of the Reason Foundation stated, “Making it harder for them (registrants) to get housing is really the opposite of a public safety strategy. It will undermine public safety. You can’t monitor people if they’re effectively off the map.”
Simply translated, put registrants back on the map by eliminating residency restrictions for people who are forced to register, and allow them to live wherever housing is available so they can be effectively monitored.
All existing data already tells us that the next victim of a sexual offense will most likely be the victim’s relative, neighbor, friend, school acquaintance, coach, teacher, clergy, or other individual who is familiar with the victim but not yet on the registry.
It’s high time we look at real data and formulate our laws around it, not around emotional reactions that do the exact opposite of what we seek.
There is a larger issue underlying all of this. In my view, a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling contributed to giving state legislatures broad discretion to write and enforce laws that can have punitive effects, even when they are legally classified differently. As a result, laws and their enforcement vary significantly from state to state.
Florida, in my opinion, has become one of the states where this has been taken the furthest. I do not believe individual police officers are entirely responsible for how these operations are carried out. From what I have observed, much of the pressure appears to come from higher levels of management and government. Departments are expected to meet performance goals and justify their budgets from year to year, which can create incentives to focus on easier enforcement actions. While those actions may be legal under current state law, that does not necessarily mean the laws themselves are fair or just.
The question is: who is applying that pressure? In my view, it comes from those who oversee and manage law enforcement agencies rather than from the officers on the street alone.
History shows that laws can and do change. Prohibition ended, voting laws have evolved, and many other laws once considered acceptable have later been revised or repealed. The fact that something is legal today does not guarantee it will always remain that way.
the reason why legislators, cops, prosecutors, social workers and judges wont touch the registry is because of Money. cops and Prosecutors get money to maintain registrations, and the more registrations they have the more money they get from the feds. social workers here in Tallahassee, make money from the MANDATORY sex offender treatment and require you to pay cash. Judges, Prosecutors, and legislators dont want to hurt their reputation or jobs by being easy on sex offenders. Follow the corrupt money and there you will find the constitutional violations of many and all sex offender. They get away with it because it looks good politically, when they lie about it on the media
State prosecutors get paid by the state, not the Feds. And it’s a public salary. There is no “sex offender registration bonus.”
Same for state judges. How are we following the money here?
This was a read that was a breath of fresh air. Knowing people are aware that harsher laws only create increased risks there are people willing to speak up.
Research Supports Many of These Concerns
The concerns raised by lawmakers, policy experts, and victim advocates are consistent with a growing body of criminal justice research examining the effectiveness of residency restrictions.
House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell questioned why legislators proceeded despite warnings raised during the legislative process:
“Any time that I see that the staff is contradicting what the bill sponsor is trying to do, my antennae go up. … The fact the legislature passed this bill even knowing that there were these concerns should be a red flag to everybody.”
Those concerns are echoed by research from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which found that residency restrictions have shown little evidence of reducing sexual reoffending, while potentially creating unintended public safety risks by making stable housing more difficult to obtain. Researchers concluded that housing instability can increase absconding from supervision and make successful community reintegration more challenging.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz of the Reason Foundation argued:
“Making it harder for them to get housing is really the opposite of a public safety strategy. It will undermine public safety. You can’t monitor people if they’re effectively off the map.”
Recent NIJ-sponsored research supports this concern, finding that individuals released under residency restriction policies experienced greater housing instability and more frequent moves, factors associated with increased technical supervision violations and poorer reentry outcomes.
Child victim advocate and survivor Gretchen Casey also challenged the assumption that restricting where someone lives addresses how most sexual offenses occur:
“Generally, people don’t commit crimes of a sexual nature in public areas. They do it where there is less likely to be, perhaps, a witness.”
Research reviewed by the NIJ similarly found that, in the cases studied, none of the offenses would likely have been prevented by residency restrictions, largely because victims were commonly targeted through existing relationships or locations unrelated to where the offender lived.
SUMMARY
Rather than focusing solely on residency restrictions, many researchers recommend evidence-based strategies such as individualized risk assessment, effective community supervision, access to stable housing, treatment when appropriate, and resources that improve compliance with registration and supervision requirements. These approaches have been identified as more consistent with reducing recidivism and improving public safety than blanket residency restrictions alone.
References
National Institute of Justice. Residency Restrictions and Sex Offender Recidivism: Implications for Public Safety (2009)
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/residency-restrictions-and-sex-offender-recidivism-implications-public-safety?
National Institute of Justice
Rydberg, Grommon, Huebner & Bynum. Effect of Statewide Residency Restrictions on Sex Offender Post-Release Housing Mobility (Justice Quarterly, 2013).
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-statewide-residency-restrictions-sex-offender-post-release-housing
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Justice. Evaluation of Sex Offender Residency Restrictions in Michigan and Missouri (2013).
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/evaluation-sex-offender-residency-restrictions-michigan-and-missouri
National Institute of Justice
Kelly M. Socia. Residence Restriction Legislation, Sex Crime Rates, and the Spatial Distribution of Sex Offender Residences
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effect-statewide-residency-restrictions-sex-offender-post-release-housing
Kelly M. Socia. Residence Restriction Legislation, Sex Crime Rates, and the Spatial Distribution of Sex Offender Residences (2011)
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/residence-restriction-legislation-sex-crime-rates-and-spatial-distribution-sex
National Institute of Justice
Rydberg et al. Investigating the Effect of Post-Release Housing Mobility on Recidivism (2022).
https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/investigating-effect-post-release-housing-mobility-recidivism-considering
Thank you for your post. I’m going as a Lone Ranger to speak to our Nebraska governor about the topic of sex offenders and creating more common sense laws and interventions. I’m going to use this as a part of my presentation.