ND: Senate passes bill studying length of time on sex offender registry

People who are considered “low-risk” sex offenders are required to be registered for at least 15 years. A House bill looks to see if that’s too long.

Originally, House Bill 1231 called for the minimum to be at seven years before you could petition for removal. Senators amended the bill to make it a study to figure out if any lowering is appropriate.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee say there was too much debate to be confident in enacting immediate change.

“We have some issues to look at. That’s why we proposed this as a shall study [bill]. It’s that important of an issue,” said Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinberg.

 

SOURCE


Discover more from Florida Action Committee

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

11 thoughts on “ND: Senate passes bill studying length of time on sex offender registry

  • April 14, 2025

    Not much you can do at 90🤣

    Reply
  • March 31, 2025

    You know many say the registry is outdated. After hearing that, what kind of Dinosaur is the registry.
    The dinosaur that is the registry was named by me. It is called the Regisaurus because the registry has become a dinosaur. The same ole thing is not working. The registry needs to die, just like the dinos did.

    Reply
    • April 1, 2025

      It’s not outdated and greatly needed. But I do think if its a 1-time event and if it wasn’t by force than a person should be placed on it for 1 year and removed after probation is finished.

      Reply
      • April 1, 2025

        @ Mr D:

        What specifically has the registry ever accomplished in the past 30 years? It never has and cannot prevent sex crime. It has never contributed anything meaningful to a criminal investigation, outside of registry violations. And it has cost millions (if not billions) over the past 30 years or so.

        Why, exactly, is the registry “greatly needed”?

        Reply
        • April 1, 2025

          Awareness to the neighborhood that a known pedophile is in the neighborhood so be careful if you spot them.

          Reply
          • April 2, 2025

            amen to that

          • April 5, 2025

            Hmmmm, “a known pedophile?” Most people don’t know that the term “pedophilia” is a clinical diagnosis that has leaked into the common vernacular and has lost any definitive meaning for non-clinicians. The word is often–as you have–wrongly applied to everyone on the registry. Pedophilic disorder (see DSM-5, 302.2, which I paraphrase) describes someone who is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to prepubescent children. By the true definition, Jeffrey Epstein was not a pedophile. He may have been many evil things, and there are other clinical terms to describe his pathology. But pedophilia is not one of them.

            Pedophilia is extremely rare, and describes only a tiny subset of registrants. The misuse of the term by you and others to describe all registrants only makes children less safe. It is a pablum and a form of denial that distracts from the real dangers. Former offenders don’t often reoffend (somewhere above 95% do not), and most offenses against minors are perpetrated by first-time offenders who are known and trusted associates. To protect your children, you would be better off by watching those attending your backyard barbecue than by clutching your pearls over a registrant in the neighborhood.

          • April 14, 2025

            Yes and yes..

      • April 18, 2025

        I agree with you in part and disagree in part.

        The registry isn’t needed. What’s needed is better education in methods that prevent a climate where abuse of any form can take place. Greater than 90% (perhaps 95%) of new sex crimes are committed by non-registrants (a good example are the numerous sexual abuse crimes perpetrated by police, teachers, childcare workers and others who are required to pass background checks to be employed in their profession). We see these crimes on the news ALL THE TIME. The registry prevents NONE of these crimes.

        Lead researchers indicate that sexual recidivism risk drops dramatically after release. Simply providing appropriate supervision after release until their risk drops below the desistence level (where sexual recidivism risk drops to equal or below that of non-sexual offenders) is sufficient. Public notification doesn’t measurably affect recidivism and neither do residency restrictions. Police already have a person’s criminal history – that doesn’t go away when a person finishes their sentence – so law enforcement are aware of who these individuals are.

        Providing more assistance to victims actually will help reduce sexual crime MUCH MORE than funneling the BILLIONS we now pour into these registries, because a measurable number of victims do go on to repeat the cycle of abuse if their therapeutic needs are not addressed (which they aren’t currently with our justice system).

        My vote is to end registries, have a responsible level of accountability in our justice and probation system for offenders, and provide generous support to help victims heal!

        Reply
  • March 29, 2025

    I feel if this is a person first time he should be on the list for 1 year, 2nd offense 15 years and 3rd or more lifetime. Also, if later if more victims come forward then the length of time on the registry will extend that time. It should be retroactive as well in all states.

    Reply
    • March 31, 2025

      Also, getting off the registry should be automatic, not having to come up with thousands of dollars to pay an attorney. (No disrespect to the lawyers). The law should grant relief at a certain point. When we are sentenced to probation, we get off automatically once the sentence is successfully completed. However, in Florida, the registry is for life, unless a judge approves your removal and that involves hiring an attorney.
      I do not want to be 90 years old when I finally get removed, and for sure do not want to die on the registry but many have, and those who died, many are still on the registry, which is insane. If the family cannot afford to get their deceased loved one removed, it is just too bad.

      Reply

Comment Policy

  • PLEASE READ: Comments not adhering to this policy will be removed.
  • Be patient. All comments are moderated before they are published. This takes time.
  • Stay on topic. Comments and links should be relevant to this post.
  • *NEW* CLICK HERE if you have an off-topic comment or link.
  • Be respectful. Do not attack, abuse, or threaten. This includes cussing/yelling (ALL CAPS).
  • Cite. If requested, cite any bold or novel claims of fact or statistics, or your comment may be moderated.
  • *NEW* Be brief. If you have a comment of over 2,000 characters, please e-mail it to us for consideration as a member submission.
  • Reminder: Opinions and statements in comments are neither endorsed nor verified by FAC.
  • Moderation does not equal censorship. See this post for more information

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *