TO STEPHEN FLOYD: Please do not take this as a disparaging remark, but you and many like you are a bit short-sighted and your view is misplaced… because you are very uninformed…
To date, many state and federal courts have analyzed the data, testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists, and others and have reviewed the state and federal statistics regarding sexual-related crimes by people. In many cases now, both on the state and federal levels across the country, many courts have decided that these sex offender laws are not supported by real facts. Since the initial inception and enactment of what are known as the SORNA (Sex Offender Registration Act) laws, there is history and data now available to prove that the facts and information to support the enactment of these laws… well… were false, fabricated or just plain scare tactics to get the laws passed. Courts are now re-visiting many of these past cases through new legal challenges, and reversing their previous positions. Why? The reason is simple: When a civil case is initiated, the person who sues (“Plaintiff”) has the burden to prove they are right and have to present factual evidence and facts to support their lawsuit. The State or local government being sued (“Defendant”) has to counter and challenge that factual evidence and those facts used by Plaintiff to sue. The factual evidence and facts presented by Plaintiffs now show that these laws are (1) misguided; (2) do not serve and effective purpose because the state cannot show that these laws protect the public; (3) that these laws actually hurt the community and make the community unsafe by pushing people underground; (4) are a financial and overburden monstrosity in trying to enforce the law with law enforcement and court manpower; (5) make the alleged sex offender a pariah of society and forces him/her to live on the fringes of society and makes it almost impossible to find suitable living conditions and employment; (6) creates mental health and medical problems for the alleged sex offender; (7) places them in danger of physical assault; and (8) most of these laws are punishment and banishment and so severe that they act as an enhanced sentence which prohibited by the United States and State Constitutions under the ex post facto clause.
When state’s have to defend the lawsuits and the person suing presents facts and evidence, the State or local government in their defense cannot defend because they cannot overcome their burden of defense with factual evidence and facts to counter the person’s factual evidence and facts who brought the law suit. The Defendant’s reply to the other side’s factual evidence and facts goes something like this…
DEFENDANT STATE: “Mr. Judge, it is common sense that we should register those who are convicted of sex offenses and restrict them and monitor their everyday movements and prohibit them from living near schools, bus stops, places where children congregate because they are the highest of the recidivism levels of all categories of crimes and will re-offend. We have the government statistics.”
JUDGE: “Can you prove this “common sense” fact and support it with government statistics, psychologists, psychiatrists, sex offender therapists, anything?
DEFENDANT STATE: “No, Mr. Judge, it is just plain, old, common sense!”
PLAINTIFF: “Mr. Judge, we have presented facts and evidence that are credible and actual crime statistics from the government and from law enforcement. We have presented facts and evidence from psychologists, psychiatrists, sex offender therapists. And, by ALL government statistics and testimony, it is a fact that sex offenses are one of the lowest recidivism rates among the entire legal spectrum of crimes.”
JUDGE: “Mr. State, can you refute any of this?”
DEFENDANT STATE: “No, Mr. Judge. But it is common sense.”
JUDGE: “Mr. State, I do not deny that you may have good intentions, but misplaced. If you cannot present evidence to refute the Plaintiff’s facts and evidence, then I have to rule in their favor. Interestingly, you state that you have evidence with your own state statistics to refute the Plaintiff’s evidence, but the Plaintiff is using your own statistics from your law enforcement department, which favors them. You cannot even refute those statistics from your own government. I have to decide that the SORNA law or parts of it in your state are unconstitutional. My decision is that the law is unconstitutional.”
The Pennsylvania SORNA law has been found to violate the law as unconstitutional. The Michigan SORNA law has been found to violate the law as unconstitutional. These two recent Court decisions follow Court decisions from other states and decisions from the federal government. These are the facts.
To state that anyone or any group is only seeking publicity to get their name out… well… when you send out a Press Release, that is the idea… to have your cause heard or to inform and educate the public of something. This is what NARSOL is doing… educating the public about bad laws that hurt you and that you pay for, and laws to protect you! Is there anything wrong with that?