The real proof that legislators don’t care about protecting children but only continuing to punish people they don’t like is that there is empirical evidence that calling someone a “sexual predator” increases their risk of reoffending, especially if the risk was low to start with. Treating low-risk individuals like high-risk individuals makes them act like high-risk individuals. This is why sex offender advisory boards in multiple states have recommended no longer using the label “predator.” If the people in power really wanted to prevent the victimization of children, they would pass laws that decrease rather than increase the risk of recidivism.

Jacob, that’s correct. The question of whether the requirement to register intrastate travel under 30 days in person is unconstitutional as applied to sexual predators was not before the court. Courts don’t have jurisdiction to strike down laws that are not being challenged before them, so this court could not have invalidated the parallel reporting provision as it is found in F.S. 775.21. Only a person who could benefit from such a ruling would have standing to challenge it. So, we will see…

The question of whether SP’s may register intrastate travel online simply hasn’t come before the court, has it? Yet the court’s reasoning wrt SO’s is persuasive, and really I see nothing in the ruling (or, according to the ruling, even the statute!) that would prevent FDLE from giving SP’s the same online access if they want to.

*Referring to all those mislabeled by Florida statute as sexual predators.

Thank you Sarah!!!