SB 212 is on the Judiciary Committee agenda for tomorrow – Write these Senators TODAY!

45 thoughts on “SB 212 is on the Judiciary Committee agenda for tomorrow – Write these Senators TODAY!”

• JJJJ

  February 10, 2026

  Sent emails last night to all on the committee.
  I hope they can see the insanity of what they are proposing.

  Reply
• J.B.

  February 10, 2026

  Emails sent. Received some auto replies and then what seems like a few actual human replies this morning, one even encouraging to come testify, which unfortunately, I cannot.

  I just need to be able to continue working where I do and doing what I do and these bills threaten my ability to do so. It’s been many years of no issues with anyone anywhere and now just imagine the impact on the economy if they wipe out all of us that have actually been injecting money into the economy locally and in general. And don’t get me started on the impact to my family, including caring for my aging parents.

  Reply
• Jesus Loves

  February 9, 2026

  This better not go into affect making it a law. How are we suppose to relax and enjoy ourselves. We already did our time. One other thing I would like to add. What about gyms. How would we be able to work out there to stay healthy. I work out at gym to maintain my health. They have locker rooms and showers. This law is so out of control.

  Keep us posed what happens.

  Reply
• Tim

  February 9, 2026

  Emailed all 11 senators. I got five automated replies back so far.

  Reply
• Reformed

  February 9, 2026

  I truly believe our freedom of movement is being restricted if SB212 is law. Can’t go to the beach. Can’t go to a park. Can’t visit restaurants if they are by water. Can’t visit hotels. Not many hotels dont have pools. Some hotels that dont have a pool have a beach. Can’t visit family if they are 200ft from a park. Can’t go to a gym because they have showers.

  Reply
• Tim C

  February 9, 2026

  Email sent to all

  I am writing to express my strong opposition to Senate Bill 212 (2026) — Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators — currently under consideration in the Florida Senate. While protecting children and public safety is a priority we all share, I believe this bill’s expanded residency and proximity restrictions are not only ineffective at improving public safety but also create serious harms for families and communities across Florida. 

  First, there is no credible evidence that residency restrictions improve public safety.
  Despite the political appeal of “exclusion zones” and distance-based prohibitions targeting people on the sex offender registry, the best available research indicates these policies do not meaningfully reduce sex crimes or recidivism. Comprehensive reviews of the research show that residency restrictions have little potential to prevent sex offenses against children and few studies have demonstrated any public safety benefit. In many cases, only a tiny fraction of offenses occur near an offender’s residence, and restricting where someone can live is unlikely to stop the patterns of offending that most research associates with recidivism. 

  Studies looking at real-world data have found that distance-based restrictions would not likely have prevented the overwhelming majority of sexual recidivism incidents, and the assumption that living near a school, pool, or park increases risk is not supported by the evidence.  Furthermore, comprehensive policy reviews (including federal analyses) have found that residency restrictions as a policy do not have empirical support as an effective public safety measure, and may create a false sense of security rather than real safety improvements. 

  Second, SB 212’s restrictions will harm families and disrupt community stability.
  In addition to broadening prohibited zones — including parks, pools, beaches, and waterbodies — the bill requires people on the registry to avoid being within a set distance of everyday public places and schools.  In practice, this means that some parents who are otherwise law-abiding and employed in Florida could be unable to pick up their own children from school, attend sporting events, or participate in everyday family life without fear of legal consequences.

  This effect is not hypothetical — in states with strict residency and location restrictions, access to everyday community amenities is dramatically reduced, and basic parental involvement in schooling and family life can be criminalized or severely constrained. These restrictions disproportionately affect families where a parent is on the registry, often leaving children without parental involvement during critical school functions, extracurricular activities, or simple transportation needs.

  Third, the bill will worsen housing instability and undermine reintegration.
  By creating massive exclusion zones (often covering the vast majority of residential areas), such policies make it difficult or nearly impossible for affected individuals to find stable housing. Research consistently shows that stable housing and employment are some of the strongest predictors of reducing recidivism, yet SB 212 will push people away from communities, family support networks, jobs, and critical services.  In extreme cases, such restrictive laws have contributed to homelessness and unsafe living conditions, making it harder — not easier — for individuals to remain offense-free.

  For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to oppose Senate Bill 212. If the goal is to protect communities and children, policies should be grounded in credible evidence and focused on proven approaches such as treatment, risk-based supervision, and practices that encourage stable housing and family support — not broad, ineffective, and harmful residency bans.

  Thank you for your time and consideration of my views on this important issue.

  Respectfully,

  Reply