ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings | Recordings (6/12 Recording Uploaded)
Emotional Support Group Meetings

Click here to sign up now for ACSOL’s Online EPIC Conference: Empowered People Inspiring Change Sept 17-18
Download a PDF of the schedule


FL: Shaming alert: Jackson County’s sex offender notification changes

[ – 7/14/20]

JACKSON COUNTY, Fla. (PRESS RELEASE) – Effective immediately, all sex offenders moving into Jackson County will have their picture, address, offender status, and certain information regarding their crime(s) posted on the Jackson County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page.

Sexual predators moving into the area, as well as those relocating within the county, will also be posted.

This measure is not for punitive purposes, but to better insure the safety of our most vulnerable citizens.

Read the full article


We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please do not solicit funds
  • If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  • All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A plague upon all of their houses. May those who revel in such barbarity suffer a slow and painful death.


A plague upon their houses? A slow and painful death upon the oppressors? You may get your wish during these Pandemic times…

The crazy thing is I’m sure it’s not done for murderers, or even burglars when they’re known to repeatedly break into peoples homes, cars, etc.

Wow. So now the local PD is willingly broadcasting to the world on Facebook who’s a registrant in their area. That sounds eerily like shaming in a public square as opposed to people going to the PD to find out who’s who, which is the 2003 Smith v Doe dissenters said the world wide web is like a public square and shaming is a form of traditional punishment.

Terrible to continue to trample on people’s civil rights. I hope Fla compares this exercise to the original 2003 Smith v Doe standard. Or maybe something that Janice can use at a federal level.

Guess the c@€% suckers at the department don’t realize “offenders” are somebody’s child/sister/brother/mother/father too…
Fuck us and our families right? Live by the sword die by the sword.

Nothing like drawing fear online during unprecedented times in Jackson County Flordumbies. It’s not for punitive measures but to protect our most vulnerable citizens ; who are? What about the children of registrants don’t their lives matter? Why should they pay for something they had nothing to do with? What about the children that have been killed because of violence in major cities across this country and they’re is no outcry? Only when crime involves sex the public brings out their pitchforks. Sad that our country is supposed to be free; yet we aren’t even at the top of that list. Human rights have been violated for decades and nobody cares.

This is essentially what Judge Matsch said in Millard v. Rankin.

Precisely! He also recognized the importance of direct scrutiny upon the state’s congresses ex post ” use of language ” in the law\ statute itself chosen by congress.

Odd how the burden wrongly shifted onto the defendant given the plain use the words ” was in prison for a crime” first, which naturally provided prima fascia evidence of potential wrongdoing by congress itself.

If no liberty at stake who would complain about the use of identified prohibited words in text. -J.P. Stevens.

By Congress insisting ” more is needed” compels the necessary conclusion – the deterrent effect of law ( ex. Incarceration threat) is near to nill. Therefore the noble cause of ” recidivism as a statutory consideration ” is also irrelevant to reality of outcome.

The blatant disregard for constitutional discipline by Congress in the OMNIBUS94 promulgated since via Smith V & Connecticut DPS has resulted in unprecedented power by cops of the administrative branches. Naturally revolt against the police state will ensue and escalate.

I wish versions of him would be scattered throughout the courts of this country. To many judges are scared to rule on issues that favor registrants.

Most of the general public are going to support this measure because they think this is going to benefit greatly through the delusion of being safe, when it’s all political, with no one daring to take a chance and courage to step up to the plate and say to them “No, we are against this because this will endanger the lives of those on the registry who are trying to live better lives, and the purpose of these notifications that they want, is to continue the punishment after they’ve paid their debt to society.

Of course, when you label people with a scary and horrendous name such as ‘sexual predator’ you can treat them and their families as sub human. In reality, most child molesters don’t stalk children but usually get caught up in a moment of opportunity and irrational thinking.
Another good example why certain cowardly bullies with a badge need to be defunded.

So, who is asking the good sheriff what safety he thinks he’s providing by doing this so they can be informed of the stats? Is FAC down there going to so he can be on record of his thinking?

Further, I would ask the sheriff what exactly the public is supposed to do with this information; the mere assertion that simply knowing it makes them safer doesn’t answer that.

What about the disclaimer that using the registry to harass or threaten those on it may be prosecuted (even though it never is – go figure)? Is that on the Facebook page? I can’t use Facebook and probably wouldn’t anyway except to comment on stories like this where that’s the only means allowed by the source.

Yep, so basically social media facilitates circumvention of the Megan’s law website warning about using the info to harass people. Instead they’ll use services like NextDoor to do their dirty work behind your back.

That’s also how law enforcement gets around people not answering their doors and judges not enforcing warrants. They also use the partnership with NextDoor to receive anonymous tips for their sex offender sting operations. It’s all part of circumventing the courts in an way possible. Anything beneficial to registrants that isn’t eliminated through legislation is worked around by any means they can get away with.

Nextdoor has official agreements with Police stations that registrants cannot join.

Shaming alerts or scamming alerts. Janice much of this is sounding more like a two wrongs don’t make a right in vain type of safety ordeal. So where is the spiritual understanding.Where is the value in shaming of this vigilante type safety factor in this domino effect. Who is humilating or making one ashamed. Were is the psychology in or even the rehibilition factor. Might as well say there’s a person with a gun living in one’s area and to warn others or a massuage parlor down the street for wealthy men or is their a beer joint right across the street from a school.

The framers of the Constitution were God-fearing men making a sincere attempt to establish a new nation on biblical principles, It defines our most fundamental freedoms in general such as freedom of speech due process laws free exercise of religion equal protections under the law and cruel and unusual punishment. One wonders were the right of Conscience comes into play in this ordeal in this persuasive game.

Do we praise the Lord for such wisdom, knowledge and understanding or man for their wisdom? Is man belittling or betray in much of this offender game. If authorities have to use deceptive devices such as this what does that tell you about man’s government in these matters I’m sure their would be less confusion but money is a big factor in much of this game Look at how much pays for leg monitoring, for these sex class programs, fines and other things.


We’re not allowed on Facebook…but that’s where this will be posted. Guess some registered citizens will be on Facebook after all.

*** This measure is not for punitive purposes, but to better insure the safety of our most vulnerable citizens. ***

So all politicians and law enforcement need to say is “this is not for punitive purposes” to create a high threshold to disprove.

Remember how in California there was residency and presence restrictions? Wasn’t that considered “not for punitive purposes”? Then it’s ruled unconstitutional.

In Ca, 1203.4 helped registrants de-register automatically. Yet, if you read comments online about stopping de-registration from 1203.4 and pushing it to the CoR, the politicians and law enforcement say they didn’t want to make it easier to get off the registry. Thus, they’re creating hardship just because.

hmmmm… I wonder if those comments were in any legal case? I’ve read so much throughout the years.

To add onto using “for statutory purposes” as the guise to continue piling onto registrants, I’ll add this dissenter, Justice J Mosk from People v Castellanos :

Applying this test, the Reed court first determined, “that such registration is an ‘affirmative disability or restraint,’ ” citing language in Kelly and Birch quoted above regarding the onerous nature of the requirement. (Reed, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 920.) The Reed court added: “Similarly, albeit in a different context, Justice Kaus has characterized the sex offender registration requirement as follows: ‘Apart from the bother and loss of privacy which mere registration entails, the “ready availability” to the police, if it serves its purpose, presumably means a series of command performances at lineups.’ [Citation.] Needless to emphasize, law enforcement ‘command performances’ involve compulsion and restraint.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.)

Essentially stating the state is willing to violate some of your civil rights for public safety.
Mosk then shares why the registry should be considered constitutionally suspect because it is outside of “fines, imprisonment, and execution” traditional forms of punishment.

Continuing our consideration of the Mendoza-Martinez factors, we stated: “The fact that sex offender registration may not have ‘historically been regarded as punishment’ is not dispositive. The Mendoza-Martinez opinion sets out a number of relevant considerations, not a checklist of absolute requirements. Furthermore, in Trop v. Dulles (1958) 356 U.S. 86 [2 L. Ed. 2d 630, 78 S. Ct. 590], the Supreme Court invalidated the penalty of denationalization imposed for wartime desertion. The court denied that the government has ‘a license … to devise any punishment short of death within the limits of its imagination…. [¶] … Fines, imprisonment, and even execution may be imposed depending upon the enormity of the crime, but [21 Cal. 4th 810] any technique outside the bounds of these traditional penalties is constitutionally suspect.’ [Citation.]

“Similarly in Weems v. United States (1910) 217 U.S. 349 [54 L. Ed. 793, 30 S. Ct. 544], the high court stressed the severity of the nonphysical punishment imposed. Though no doubt influenced in its decision by the harshness of the physical punishment, the court also addressed the postimprisonment penalties: ‘His prison bars and chains are removed, it is true, after twelve years, but he goes from them to a perpetual limitation of his liberty. He is forever kept under the shadow of his crime, forever kept within voice and view of the criminal magistrate, not being able to change his domicile without giving notice to the “authority immediately in charge of his surveillance,” and without permission in writing. He may not seek, even in other scenes and among other people, to retrieve his fall from rectitude. Even that hope is taken from him and he is subject to tormenting regulations that, if not so tangible as iron bars and stone walls, oppress as much by their continuity, and deprive of essential liberty.’ [Citation.]

The registry is a postimprisonment penalty. It is depriving us of liberty. If you read the dissent, it cites Kelly v Municipal identifying the loss of freedom:
“The duty to reregister upon changing one’s place of address is a continuing duty, a burden which the convicted person carries with him until his dying day. Being thus severely limited in his freedom of movement and continuously under police surveillance, all stemming from the conviction which has been set aside, the conclusion seems irresistible that this registration requirement is one of the ‘penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense or crime of which he has been convicted’ ….”

I am relieved to hear that it is not punitive.
I’m certain that caning in Singapore is merely “instructional”. 😏

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x