The Court had asked both sides (lawyers for the registrants and lawyers for the county) to submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law after the residency restriction trial in October.
After a couple extensions, both sides submitted their pleadings last week, which can be read below:
M-D – Finding of Fact – County
Is it me or is the “not punitive because it wasn’t intended to be” argument getting tiresome? It sounds more and more idiotic every time it’s repeated, in my opinion. That’s like saying the Patriots didn’t lose the Super Bowl because they didn’t intend to.
Also curious about the term “collateral consequence.” Consequence is synonymous with punishment in layman’s terms, isn’t it? Academia distinguishes the two terms, but most people don’t (as far as I can tell).
From Counties Findings of Fact Statement:
As recognized by the Supreme Court, the fact that residency restrictions, generally, were “of fairly recent origin” at the time of the Ordinance No. 05-206’s enactment “suggests that the [ordinance] was not meant as a punitive measure or, at least it did not involve a
traditional means of punishing.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 97
Really? The Supreme Court addressed the issue of residency restrictions in Smith?
in short the states argument: because the requirements of the registry are so onerous that all the defendants had to violate them just to survive all defendants are ineligible to challenge the fact they are to onerous…..
talk about the devil and the deep blue sea..further evidence the government is fully well aware they are committing a crime and what they are doing is criminal..the government operated under the “might makes right” principles..since they have the guns, the money, the power anything they do is acceptable…there is only one way to fight something like that and it Is not the courts that they own.
1) What’s is the States legislative history of the SORR? It is first found in the special conditions of probation and parole both of which are punishments. 775.215 was intended to be a punishment.
Two) Does the penalty Imposed for a violation point directly back to the original offense if so it’s punishment.
Three) Does this sanction apply retroactively as with all other sex offender statutes? it Does not. It is clear that legislative meant 775.215. To be a punishment.
State law prohibits its Counties from imposing or enhancing a punishment. Simple
Although in the finding of fact plaintiffs noted how the State law applies only to those convicted on or after its enactment date they failed to note that the punishment imposed by this statute points directly back to the original offense.
As noted in 775.215: b) A person who violates this subsection and whose conviction under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145 was classified as a felony of the first degree or higher commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who violates this subsection and whose conviction under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, s. 827.071, s. 847.0135(5), or s. 847.0145 was classified as a felony of the second or third degree commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Because the punishment imposed points back to the original offense 775.215 is punitive not a civil remedial act.
In the Government brief, it stated …..” released rapists were found to be “10.5 “times as likely as non-rapists to be re-arrested for rape, and those who had served time for sexual assault were 7.5 times as likely as those convicted of other crimes to be rearrested for a new sexual assault.” According to a study published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics titled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983 (“Beck (1990)”), “the relative likelihood of re-arrest for a similar crime was highest among prisoners released for rape, sexual assault, homicide, or fraud and lowest among those released for public-order or drug. Similarly, a 1997 study by Robert Prentky and colleagues titled Recidivism Rates
Among Sexual offenders and Rapists: A Methodological Analysis (“Prentky (1997)”) examined recidivism of a sample of rapists and sexual offenders over a 25-year period and found that, with respect to sexual offenders, “[i]t is significant— and should be underscored—that, 10 years after discharge, there was a substantial re-offense rate (i.e., at Year 10, the recidivism rate for new sexual charges was 30 percent, and by Year 25, it had increased to “52 percent”). “ << wow just wow…unbelieveable! If the courts were to accept this statistic cited by the gov, we are screw! Meaning as sex offender, we are considered monster in reoffending! God helps us all!
One could preform statistical analysis using those on the registry to verify the recidivism rate of sex offenders by offense in this State
how do you propose that can be done, CMC? Would you be able to take point on a project to determine that?
Are these observations not already rebutted by Does (starting with point no. 137 in the filing)? Above are not stats I have heard anyone cite before.
It would be a daunting task and I wouldn’t know really how are where to begin. That being said with some assistance surely.
FAC, this isn’t an insurmountable goal.
The registry is a catalog of all the registered sex offenders in the state as of a particular date. You would first parse that list for RSO’s with multiple sexual convictions (since the registry only lists sex offenses not all offenses). This new list would then be filtered for RSO’s with multiple convictions but who have more than one conviction date, that is, after being convicted of a registerable offense they were subsequently convicted of another. Now this fraction of the list would need to be investigated at the local level by requesting offense reports or other court filings to determine if subsequent convictions occurred before or after their first registerable offense. These are the number of RSO’s who are reoffending. Divide that by the sample size and viola…
We could identify the important list of RSO’s with multiple convictions in less than an hour. I’m at work at the moment otherwise I’d do it now.
The state let’s anyone download the registry, and data analytics is not a new science.
And i’ll Send the results as a pdf too….
My big thing is the SORR. As I have mentioned numerous times the state statue is and was intended to punish. It is not a remedial civil sanction. This is not about a federal ex post facto claim. It is not whether the State pre-empted the counties, its about State Constitional law. Again, 775.215 is not remedial it is punitive. I will be seeking judicial review if your action fails.
CMC – you are not a party to the case so I don’t know what standing you would have to seek judicial review. Also, the 11th circuit remanded the case on a “federal ex post facto” issue, so I’m not clear why you would state that’s not what this case is about. This is a federal case that has nothing to do with state preemption – that’s not even part of the claim, so again, I’m not clear what your comment is about.
Your argument in the Southern District Court of Florida seeks to declare article XVII so punitive in effect that it violates the Federal Ex. Post Facto provision. Miami Dade County argues article XVII is merely a remedial non punitive action and as such does not violate the Federal EX Post Facto provision. It would be safe to assume that if John Doe # 4, et at., prevails County will appeal to the 11 circuit.
In Exile V Miami Dade, the ACLU agreed Dade County meant the code to be a Non Punitive remedial sanction, however; it unlawfully “Intruded into the State’s statutory scheme” in the regulation of sexual offenders, arguing “Implied Preemption”. Noting the historically strong disfavored doctrine of “Implied Preemption” in the State of Florida the Court AFFIRMED the trail courts decision.
Never addressed was whether “STATE” meant 794.065 to be Punitive NOT merely remedial.
This question is of great importance as Florida State Constitution prohibits Counties from imposing or enhancing punishments for crimes.
SECTION 11. Prohibited special laws.—
(a) There shall be no special law or general law of local application pertaining to:
(4) punishment for crime;
In discerning the intent behind a statutory enactment, courts engage in a familiar judicial function, usually with the benefit of legislative history that preceded passage of the statue.
In its legislative Analysis dated November 15 2005 paragraph II, County pointed to two sections codified in Title XLVII of the Florida Statutes Criminal Procedures and Corrections: 947.1405 and 948.30. It is well established law at both State and Federal levels, that Parole and probation as well as any special conditions imposed are punishments.
My argument is that neither State Nor County can declare what was once punishment as now remedial. This is why State Statute 794.065 now 775.215 is applied only to those whose conviction occurred on or after its enactment. It is intended to give notice of a residency restriction imposed resulting from the conviction of a qualifying offense.
My Homelessness is a direct result of Article XVII, which gives me standing to seek declaratory relief in this matter.
The County is in violation of the State constitution not only for imposing a PUNISHMENT greater than that imposed by the State, but also for violating its Ex Post Facto provision.
Question: Can Dade County impose a punishment of life imprisonment for assault and battery where State law imposes only 10? What rule of law prevents it from doing so?
I don’t see why it makes a crap what the recidivism rate it. The state obviously isn’t concerned with it if they let people that assault babies off with probation. My crime was on a victim 4 Years and couple months younger that begain according to the case when I was a minor. I did 5 years. When I got out for the probation phase which included group treatment I was the only only out of 9 to 11 men and the youngest and that didn’t assault a kid under 12 and this is the point…I was the only one that went to prison. Either the system is completely broken where the only way the state can get a conviction is to plead guys out and then use the registry to “stop” new crime and they have todo so making it such harsh rules (which is bs its not gonna stop anyone if they are say Bundy or who ever the rest are) or 2 the registry is the punishment. Someone needs to admit the system is broken thats why there is a guy living beside them on the registry or 3 admit they are so inept this is the way we have todo business and admit so people can vote differently for electing a bunch of idiots. There is no other excuse. A rape conviction is the easiest to get period; council doesn’t represent worth a crap. Its not my business what anyones done but my opinion is when your time is served its up to you todo the right thing and make amends in some way. These charges carry life but guys are given probation something happening here, they are using the registry as the punishment and civilians and victims are counting on it to punish which its doing. What do you say CMC if you do this study you should also keep an eye open for how many people the registry caught (after the fact) committing new crimes. It should be just as important how many men when and raped and due to the registry it made it easier to catch the guy. Not DNA either. I know I listed no law here cause whats the point the constitution over and over again doesnt apply to offenders nor common sense though I wasted 10 minutes posting some.
All this new business they are drumming up isn’t new sex charges its charges for not listing a job or absconding from something they should have the same right to after they did their time or internet identifier been using a dating site checking out women of legal age or picking their kids up from school and charges weren’t even on a kid or keeping up with family on facebook and don’t even have kids on there bla bla blah. Need to put these resources toward human trafficking and actually stop something before it happens or too late give the money to the FBI or sheriff for some real work infiltrating gangs that are kidnapping sex slaves not the state keeping the local court fat catching people with an unlisted phone number where a guy hasn’t done nothing for 20 years and probably doesnt even have se anymore. What I want to know if the registry is for life the why is dead people on there thats just sick.
” The Court had asked both sides (lawyers for the registrants and lawyers for the county) to submit proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. ”
How about you take these judges on a field trip to the streets where the homeless registrants are living in their harsh conditions and have them stay there for a couple of weeks. How about that for facts ?? Cut the crap and strike down these SORR laws already…geez..
So then what just happened ? I’m a bit confused. Was there oral arguments already ? or ? and what happens now or what comes next after these submitted pleadings ?
Trial took place in October, after which the Judge asked both sides to submit their findings of facts and conclusions of law. Essentially, it’s a pleading which each side gets to present its written “take” on what took place in Trial (ie: our witness XXX confirmed that…).
Three pages into reading Does’ very impactful proposed finding of fact, I am taking a break just to post the following:
Way to go!!!!