Miami-Herald: FAC Opinion Published
An opinion piece in response to a recent article in the Miami Herald was published today.
The text of the response and an image of the article as it appeared are below.
Your December 31, 2018 article, “Report: Number of sex offenders living in Florida is growing.” correctly points out that the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) does not include any explanation for the rise in the number of sex offenders in our State. However, the reason is obvious. Florida is one of only a small handful of states that requires people to register for the duration of their life.
When you combine new sex offenders being continuously added to the registry with zero attrition, it’s no wonder the numbers have grown (and will continue to grow) at such a fast pace.
Florida has also increased the number of offenses that require registration. Since it was enacted on October 1, 1997, the number of offenses that will land you on our State’s sex offender registry has more than tripled. The 1997 version of Fla. Stat. 943.0435 had eight qualifying offenses, the 2018 version has twenty qualifying offenses!
It is time Florida followed in the footsteps of states such as California and Missouri, who recently enacted a tiered registry. We need to stop wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on something that research has consistently demonstrated is ineffective. If not, the registry will only become more bloated and untenable than it already is.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you for taking the time to write and submit that. Glad to see they actually printed it. NARSOL has a good response on this as well.
My only thought is at least a tier system subdivides registrants and provides an exit strategy for some. This is a small step to be sure but the lies and mis-information die long, slow deaths. I think once the changes start they will be slow and small but gain momentum.
Such a well-done response.
I should mention that, in the absence of complete abolition, a tiered registry is the way to do it, IF done properly.
That includes, tiers that are risk-based rather than offense-based (the latter being a single narrow dimension of risk); legal mechanism for contesting and updating one’s risk level as the offender rehabilitates over time; and different laws associated with different tiers, so that LE cannot simply impose their will indiscriminately (Tier 1 to include privacy laws and automatic removal, for ex.).
Some states with tiers, do this properly, and some don’t, which is why tiers can be meaningful or not, depending.
It is about time that people wake up and realize that the registry is costing them a lot of money and does nothing to keep anyone safe. As a matter of fact it not only put the offender in danger but it also put their family in danger. They can’t get a job because of it and they wind up on welfare which even cost you more money, If the can’t get welfare then they have no option but to steal or rob to survive.
The Registries also put all of society (i.e. all of us, everyone) in a lot more danger than they would be than if the Registries did not exist. That is very clear.
The local St. Augustine Record made this article a front page headline. I wanted to respond but did not know what to say. How can I submit the FAC response to them?
You can paraphrase what was written.
Again, more common sense, keep adding and never take off is not sustainable. Or useful even.
I would be even more impressed if they actually pointed out how the proactive police stings are also adding completely innocent citizens to the registry, and prisons!
But it’s still a baby step. The public is becoming aware. Slowly.
Agree with Kathleen. Pro-active police stings add completely innocent citizens to the registry and prisons! These police stings need to be banned. They are unconstitutional as well as the registry requirements for those who are entrapped by these law enforcement officials behind these stings.
If the law would do their job there would not be a registry. It is the laws job to keep an eye on things not the public. The law wants the registry because it lets them sit on their cans and let the public do their job for them.