Many men and women seeking services at our project share feeling like this is an unchosen, unwanted condition that began in adolescence. This creates a reinforced belief system that when confronted, is hard to conceive i.e. that someone who is a pedophile hasn’t sexually abused a child nor has any desire to do so. While statistics vary, research indicates a large majority of sex offenders with child victims are not actually pedophiles (Seto, 2009). Elizabeth Letourneau's TedMed talk at the bottom of this page.īecause society often conflates ‘pedophile’ and ‘sex offender,' many people believe ALL pedophiles have sexually abused children. Have you ever heard of the following words used in the same sentence: anti-contact pedophile? How about a non-offending pedophile?įor more information about these terms watch Dr. In so holding, the court declined to substantively address Petitioner’s argument raised for the first time on appeal that he is in custody in part due to the separate residency restrictions imposed by his registration status and by state and local laws.What exactly is AN "Anti-Contact, Non-Offending" Pedophile? Holding: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and held, as a matter of first impression, that Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for individuals who have committed sex offenses did not substantially limit registrant’s actions or movement, and thus, registrant was not “in custody,” within meaning of habeas statute. Accordingly, it ruled that Florida’s sex offense registration and reporting requirements were collateral consequences of his conviction. Nor did they require Petitioner to obtain the state’s approval before finding a residence or prevent him from participating in legal activities. But it concluded that they did not restrict Petitioner’s freedom of movement. The district court acknowledged that the sex offense registration and reporting requirements were inconvenient. The relevant question in this case is whether Florida’s registration and reporting requirements for sex offenders render those offenders “in custody” within the meaning of § 2254(a). As a result, certain restraints on a person’s liberty, short of physical detention, can satisfy the “in custody” requirement. Petitioner responded that his lifetime sex offense registration, “along with all the other restrictions that come with being ,” significantly restrained his individual liberty such that he was “in custody” for purposes of § 2254(a).Ī person seeking federal habeas corpus relief from a state court judgment must-among other things-be “in custody.” The Supreme Court has not interpreted the “in custody” requirement literally. The state moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because he was not “in custody” under § 2254(a). Nine years later, in 2017, Petitioner-proceeding pro se-sought federal habeas corpus relief from his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The terms of that probation included sex offense registration pursuant to Fla. Nature of Case: In 2008, the Petitioner in this case pled guilty to a charge of lewd or lascivious conduct in violation of Florida law and was sentenced to five years of sexual offense probation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |