UPDATED: Never!5-21-2010 National:
If a state is declared "in compliance," what does that mean? The SMART Office just declare Florida to be "in compliance." But are they?
Have you taken the time to review the Florida sex offender registry to see if it follows what the Adam Walsh Act calls for? We have, and it does not comply with mandatory Adam Walsh Act information. See the following:
42 USC 16918. SEC. 118. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION THROUGH THE INTERNET.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this section, each jurisdiction shall make available on the Internet, in a manner that is readily accessible to all jurisdictions and to the public, all information about each sex offender in the registry. The jurisdiction shall maintain the Internet site in a manner that will permit the public to obtain relevant information for each sex offender by a single query for any given zip code or geographic radius set by the user. The jurisdiction shall also include in the design of its Internet site all field search capabilities needed for full participation in the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website and shall participate in that website as provided by the Attorney General. . . . . . . . . .
(e) CORRECTION OF ERRORS.—The site shall include instructions on how to seek correction of information that an individual contends is erroneous.
(f) WARNING.—The site shall include a warning that information on the site should not be used to unlawfully injure, harass, or commit a crime against any individual named in the registry or residing or working at any reported address. The warning shall note that any such action could result in civil or criminal penalties.
The SMART Office also has a "Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Substantial Implementation Checklist" for States to follow. In the pictorial below folks can see the "Warning and Correction" issues have been addressed. States ignore them and the SMART Office doesn't seem to care, and still declares them In-Compliance!
Many would say, these are insignificant points. Really? Doesn't "shall" mean "do this," and it is not discretionary, it is mandatory, especially said multiple times. Personally I do not think even a small measure of protection for RSOs and their families is insignificant, they have a target on their backs placed there indiscriminately by politicians acting for personal gain not public safety, although they tout the latter, it is but a pretext. Delaware's registry does include the warning!
On the outside chance that, Florida's registry does contain what is shown above but buried somewhere deep in the site, please be advised EVERYTHING about a registrant is supposed to be available "by a single query" according to AWA. The Warning should be PROMINANT such as is Delaware's registry is or similar.
This is proof that states will be picking from AWA whatever suits them, as long as they DO NOT lose Byrne Grant funding. It would seem that, the SMART Office's "in compliance" would -at least- include EVERY "shall of AWA." The fact that they declared Florida in compliance without the above, indicates -to this writer- they don't give a hoot about registrants and their families.
Anyone who thinks this is a superfluous post needs to spend some time reading two other of my blogs: 1) Vigilante Acts Towards Registrants and their families; -and- 2) Murders of RSOs and others associated with registrants or sex offenses, which includes those who were mistaken for a registrant.
Everyone needs to be contacting their state reps to make sure that, at a minimum, the above is included in their state's online registry, and displayed as PROMINANTLY or better than Delaware's registry. In 2009 65 registrants were murdered (Florida and California each had 6 murders. see map below), do folks need a better reason?
eAdvocate
