Comments on: Ten reasons why sex offender residency restrictions are a bad idea

By: TS

TS — Thu, 23 Jan 2025 12:42:49 +0000

In reply to RM.

The point I made is about the legislature or a legislator who doesn’t bemoan it being difficult, not FDLE or anyone else who sees the reality of it and then seeks changes as they did not bring it upon themselves initially when elected officials did and don’t care about the difficulty of the registry overall for all involved.

In CA, Tier 1 and Tier 2 can petition for removal, not Tier 3…yet. Out there, it wasn’t the legislature or legislator that complained either (as was initially mentioned above in this thread), but the masses in this movement who wanted to right a perceived wrong.

We, all, know it is large and unwieldy, ineffective and cumbersome, but does this matter to those who want political credibility when the next election comes around? Nope.

By: RM

RM — Wed, 22 Jan 2025 02:46:54 +0000

In reply to TS.

Allowing PFRs in Florida to register changes to “vehicles owned” via the online FDLE system, a minor “improvement” over the previous in-person reporting requirement, was supported by FDLE over multiple legislative sessions. I also believe, although I cannot find the original source, that the Florida Sheriff’s Association supported this change too. That’s not exactly the same thing, but it’s a small amount of progress in the right direction based on how sprawling the Florida registration system has become and officials recognizing that they lack the resources to fully implement it.

Also, a few years ago California significantly modified its registry laws, which used to require lifetime registration for all PRFs, to allow most of those within its scope to eventually petition for removal. None of these changes would have been possible if not for our movement.

By: TS

TS — Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:32:05 +0000

In reply to Stephen H.. I've never heard of a legislature or a legislator bemoaning the cost of the registry and it being difficult for LE to do their job related to it. If you can find and prove a legislature or legislator bemoans the cost and low ROI on it, then kudos to you. They can go seek more money from the Feds, et al.

By: Stephen H.

Stephen H. — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:28:29 +0000

In reply to TS. YES, we care about #4. We especially care about #4. It's the one argument that legislators may actually listen to, that being the extra costs and marginal returns of tracking registrants.

By: Jack Jaded

Jack Jaded — Sun, 19 Jan 2025 21:57:16 +0000

In reply to TS. You're absolutely right. They brought it on themselves. But the more reasons the registry is ineffective the better.

By: TS

TS — Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:31:56 +0000

Do we care about #4? Really? They impose this concept and this is an outcome they impose on themselves. Should be Nine reasons…

By: Alan

Alan — Sat, 18 Jan 2025 15:24:35 +0000

I would like to address point 1, “Lack of Evidence of Effectiveness”. This is not only applicable to SORNA and related laws but to all laws and regulations. The USA at all levels of government continue to pass laws at an alarming rate. They are not being made based on actual facts or left in place because they are providing the desired result, but mainly for political and/or personal gain. Laws and regulations should not be allowed to be arbitrary and new laws and regulations should be reviewed a set time after passage to ensure they are providing the desired result and if not, be automatically repealed. When that senator or representative gets up and explains all the things a bill will do if passed into law, the American public should demand it does exactly that.
There is not a single SORNA related law passed that has made one bit of difference acorrding to numerous peer reviewed studies and yet, most States and the Federal government continue to pass them like the world will end if they don’t.