I just sent this E-mail to them:

Vernon City Hall
2808 Yellow Jacket Drive
Vernon, Florida 32462
Tina Slone, Mayor

I am writing to you regarding the “Ordinance”, regarding “Sex Offenders / Predators, that your city proposes to pass. I am of course a US citizen and a former Investigator for the State of Florida, I retired in 2008.

I am highly concerned that you would lump everyone together, just because they may appear on the Sex Offender Registry. You can appear on a registry for minor mistakes that one can make. For example, perhaps going behind a tree to re-leave oneself, getting an underage picture sent to you, without even knowing about it, and there’s a list of offences that can get one on the Sex Offender Registry. On the other hand there are really Sexual Predators out there and I understand how important it is to protect our children and the public.

With this being said and according to a number of studies, to pass an Ordinance to included everyone considered a sex offender would be wrong, and simply unconstitutional. I would say that if an individual is convicted of a contact offense and even an intention of a contact offense, then consideration for this ordinance would perhaps make more sense. But PLEASE do not pass something with out proper study and review, because of political laziness. Put the time and effort in to study and review and don’t just propose this ordinance to make your city “look like” it’s doing the right thing, Just do the right thing, by study and review and you will be amazed of what the results would be.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and please consider these thoughts before you destroy lives, of individuals that just made a mistake in life and would like to try to move on.

Respectfully yours,

Don’t know … some o’ them Vernon folks aint the best readers … may not be time (or ability) to read that long message between the game of checkers and fishin’.

Yes – for a while, law enforcement was considering “incarceration” as a change of address. In other words, you would be grandfathered into your home that you own, but you “changed residences” when you went to jail and are now trying to move back.

That worked for a while against those who were too scared or broke to challenge it, but after enough people fought it, most law enforcement officials stopped playing that game.

If you lived someplace prior to the law and seek to keep that location as your residence, you have a good shot.

this is perfect. Thank you!

I am writing you as a concerned citizen of the state of FL, and as an American living under the US Constitution, in reference to the following article posted below, and would like to voice my vehement opposition to the proposed ordinance in your town:

http://www.wjhg.com/content/news/Ordinance-would-keep-sex-offenders-from-living-in-Vernon-476051283.html

I was unaware of the fact that we are still living in the medieval times here in America where the leader of a city or town can just stand up and make a declaration to banish a particular group of citizens for seemingly no apparent reason. I have a few questions that I would like the mayor and the town council to answer for me.

1) Has the mayor and council members done their due diligence and researched this matter that would lead them to come to the conclusion to come up with such an ordinance?

2) And if they did do their research, what evidence are they sighting that would lead them to propose such an ordinance?

Study after study shows that sex offenses happen mostly by people who KNEW the victim personally, and not just some random stranger off the street (a.k.a “stranger danger”). Furthermore, sex offenders have one of the LOWEST recidivism rates of any category of criminal. Also, it is further shown that residency restrictions (and ORDINANCES such as the one you’re proposing) actually do more to INCREASE recidivism for sex offenders rather than decrease it. The evidence I am sighting was found in a section from Wikipedia. However, there are TONS of more evidence out there on this issue, should one do a simple Google search:

From Wikipedia: “The vast majority of sexual offense victims are known to the offender — including friends, family, or other trusted adults such as teachers. This is contrary to media depictions of stranger assaults or child molesters who kidnap children unknown to them.[59] Thus, despite the public awareness of the whereabouts of convicted sex offenders, there has been little evidence to back the claim that mandatory registration has made society safer. According to ATSA, only in the states that utilize empirically derived risk assessment procedures and publicly identify only high risk offenders, has community notification demonstrated some effectiveness.[38][60] The majority of U.S states do not utilize risk assessment tools when determining ones inclusion on the registry, although studies have shown that actuarial risk assessment instruments, which are created by putting together risk factors found by research to correlate with re-offending, consistently outperform the offense based systems.[61]

Studies almost always show that residency restrictions increase offender’s recidivism rates by increasing offender homelessness and increasing instability in a sex offender’s life. According to a Department of Justice study, 5.3% of sex offenders who were released from prison in 1994 were arrested for a new sex offense after 3 years.[62] Robbers, arsonists and property crime committers (all of which have a recidivism rate of 60–70 percent after 3 years) were the most likely to re-offend group. Despite the public perception of sex offenders as having high recidivism, sex offenders had the second lowest recidivism rate, after only murderers. A later study done by the Department of Justice showed an even lower sex offender recidivism rate of about 2.1 percent after 3 years. However, since sex crimes are the most under-reported crimes,[63] whether or not the Department of Justice’s 5.3% sex offender recidivism rate is deceptively low is unclear. Recidivism rates only measure how many people return to prison or are arrested for a new offense and do not measure how many people actually commit a new criminal offense (some criminals commit new offenses after release from prison but do not get caught.) In the late 2000s, a study showed that Indiana sex offenders have recidivism of about 1.03% after 3 years.[64] Studies consistently show sex offender recidivism rates of 1–4% after 3 years, recividism is usually at about 5–10% after a long follow up (such as a 10–25 year follow up).”

So as you and the council can see, ROBBERS, ARSONISTS, AND HOME INVADERS have a MUCH HIGHER chance of being more dangerous to your town, than the average sex offender.

3) So, with the evidence just presented to you, why then are you still proposing this ordinance? Is it because an “attorney advised you to do it?” Are you only proposing this ordinance because “Bonifay and Chipley” also have such an ordinance? Being a copycat is hardly a reason to pass a law.

4) Has there been an extraordinary amount of sex offenders in your town causing mischief or grabbing kids off the streets that would cause you to have the need to create this ordinance? Are the 7 currently registered offenders in your town making life for the citizens of Vernon that unbearable?

5) And with such Hitler and Nazi-esque thinking being perpetrated by your town, would the leaders of your town like us to refer to them as “Heil Mayor” or Heil Councilman”? I was just wondering.

Thank you for the time to re-consider your ridiculous and unconstitutional actions based on ACTUAL FACTS AND EVIDENCE rather than just because “a lawyer told me to do it.” If you and other towns keep this up, you’re just begging for lawsuits from the sex offender population and possible the ACLU.

Have a great day.

P,
Although I can’t find it in a statute, I know of registered citizens in Duval who were able to move back into their homes, provided they owned them prior to conviction, after they got off probation.

Just noticed the free movie on YouTube as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxYik9RGEYo

interesting! I’ll look for it