Depends on how the statute is written in FL... it's a sticky wicket... But I would assume yes, if they are anything like WI...

As for being on some kind of federal registry if one moves from state to state, not sure that would apply for the same reasons IvyDog mentions.

I used to wish for someone to have the money and the right kind of case to make it to SCOTUS and help us all. But usually what that means is that they have been hurt by the law as it is, arrested or something. Not sure how I feel about wishing hardship on someone else. It is the same reason that the Affordable Healthcare Act hasn't been challenged successfully yet, no one has been 'harmed' by the law yet, until then hard to challenge something on the premise that it 'should' hurt them or 'will' hurt them.

Even federal crimes, when it comes time to register they register with the state that they reside in, not to some federal agency and the state in which they reside.

@Echo,

You said, "what's to say they can't then decide that the prison sentences are deemed too low and they extend them a few more years? and then in turn decide that they are also subject to be enforced retroactively??"

In that case they could not make it retroactive because you are dealing with a criminal sanction, not a civil sanction.

BUT, BUT, BUT our government is creative and they DO have a way of getting around that when it comes to sex offenders. What do they do to effectively increase the sentence of a sex offender and be able to get away with it?

It is called civil commitment. Even after a sex offender completes his court rendered sentence, some states can deem him still dangerous and civilly commit him until he can be "cured." The problem is that in 99% of the cases, they are never "cured" and they stay in the state's custody for years; the added civil commitment is just another way of increasing the time a sex offender is forced to spend in confinement.

How do they get around this? The civil commitment is civil in nature and not considered punitive, so they can legally do this.

Another example, which does not actually include being in prison or a commitment environment, is the registry. At some point, the government deemed sex offenders too dangerous, so they created a scheme in which they could have some "control" over registrants. The prison sentences might not have been lengthy enough for their liking, so they just introduced a civil scheme that would serve the purpose.

So the registry was introduced.

In a lesser sense, the registry is just another form of custody bestowed on people who have already fulfilled their sentence obligation from the government. The government could find no legal method to put registrants in a quasi custodial situation, so they formed a civil scheme, the registry to carry out their plan.

Isn't America grand? The land of the free and the home of the brave. ha ha

rewdiazepam

@Ivy,

You said, "Rew talks about a federal requirement but there isn't a federal list."

That is true; there is no actual federal registry.

I mentioned the situation if a former registrant was off the registry and decided to move to another state. A couple of attorneys, one an appellate attorney in Tulsa, told me that if a former registrant moved to another state he would make himself subject to a federal requirement to register.

I wanted anyone off the registry to know of this potential situation. If in doubt, contact an attorney.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006 (SORNA) imposes criminal penalties on convicted sex offenders who are required by federal or state law to register to re-register if they travel in interstate or foreign commerce.

SORNA goes on to state that "SORNA refers to the persons required to register under its standards as “sex offenders,” and SORNA defines “sex offender” to mean “an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.”

So I think the federal situation is murky. I am just repeating what I have been told by two competent attorneys, that the moving to another state MIGHT cause problems.

I know that I am not going to test them.

rewdiazepam

But while being required to register is one thing... If you move to a state where your statute of conviction is no longer registerable due to time that has passed etc so they should be off the registry, I am failing to see how a federal prosecutor could say that a person 'didn't' register if they weren't required to by the state they moved to, according to their laws. Now if the state you are moving from is still requiring you to register the state you are going to could have some clause in it that states that if you are still required to register in another state you will have to there even if you don't qualify then that is a different matter, but since all the registration laws are at the state level then it would be only legally logical that those are the laws that have to be followed.

Granted I am not an attorney, so i don't know for sure about any of it.

Rew, your lucky you live in a state and situation where you're not under severe restrictions and fear of misstepping and ending up back in jail or worse (not being able to raise my kids).

If IL laws applied to those required to register and I did my time with no further restrictions I'd happily never move or risk anything.

But that's not my case. I hate to utter these words but being registered in WI (depending on the city laws), MI or MN is still better than being unregistered but subject to these IL laws.

@WIS you're right about not wanting someone hurt in order to force the issue through the courts. My husband tells me to fight and I tell him then I'd need to be arrested and come up with a few million. It's not easy to fight.

Although CA has had success with lawsuits that still costs money.

@Ivy,

So I assume that all these restriction laws in Illinois affect those who have ever been convicted of a sex crime--even if they are currently off the registry--- rather than those currently on the registry? The laws are based on conviction rather than registration?

rewdiazepam

If the restriction laws in IL, or any state for that matter, are based on the fact of conviction rather than active registration, what is the point of a tiered registry that lets you off after 10, 15, 25 years?

Here is another wrinkle.... CA is lifetime registration only. For a very very few there is the possibility of terminating registration with a 'Certificate of Rehabilitation'. The first requirement for a COR is expungement / dismissal of the conviction. When that is granted the person was technically 'never convicted' of the crime. Even though they clearly were at one point - years, decades ago.

How would that work? What if someone had their conviction expunged AND the registration requirement terminated (with a COR) and then moved to a different state. Could they still be subject to a federal requirement to register?

As if we did not have more pressing needs in this country than these kinds of mental gymnastics. Sometimes I feel like we are living in Bizarro world....

It would be soooo much better for states and the SO themselves had a universal registration requirement (if registry remains) . If there was a national guideline for 3 tiers bd each offensse is under x tier, and each tier requires registration for x years. It gets soo complicated for ALL involved when an SO moves to another state. And when the SO moves, they have to notify both states if move so that the SO ONLY has to register in the state in which s/he resides.

I have to disagree that something national like that is just a bad idea... Yeah on the surface it looks like an easier more efficient way. In many ways it could be, but it also would make it easier for them to track SOs and if I had my way it would all be private to Law Enforcement who already share that kind of information anyway. So for other than the convenience of the general public, I really see no point.

The whole idea reminds me of the 1930s and Germany. When the Ghettos were a popular place to put people of a particular religion or political affiliation. Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Since as a species we choose to ignore history, we end up right here about every 75 years or less. It is like from generation to generation we learn NOTHING from our elders, thinking that we are so much better equipped than they were that the same things won't happen again.

The easier way and more convenient way is not necessarily the best and most appropriate way to handle certain issues.

I agree with you Wisconsin. IF there was any registry at all, it should be for LE only. But even with that, every SO should be able to get off the registry after a certain amount of time.
Every state is different, and confusing on what the requirements are if you move from this state or that one. If we don't have the standardized one, then if nothing else, it should go off of the registry requirements for the state they first registered.

In IL the restrictions (for the most part) sit in a body of law called 'the criminal code of 1961' that they keep adding to.

The definition of sex offender is 'anyone convicted' and not 'anyone required to register'.

Why? Who know.... Up until the last ten years everyone registered for only 10 years so maybe it was an attempt to control after the registry?

Or maybe it was an oversight?

I'd argue now that we have tiers these restrictions should be put under the registry law not the criminal law (they aren't punitive you know...haha) and only apply to those registered like in WI or MI.

Or to be easy just leave them in place and change the definition of 'so'.

But you know people would kick up a fuss and it'd be a major overhaul.

I've brought it to IL's advocacy group but it's baby steps. They see bigger issues to fight first.