764 So. 2d 645 - State v. Curtin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses, and most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. (b) The high level of threat that a sexual predator presents to the public safety, and the long-term effects suffered by victims of sex offenses, provide the state with sufficient justification to implement a strategy that includes: 1. Incarcerating sexual predators and maintaining adequate facilities to ensure that decisions to release sexual predators into the community are not made on the basis of inadequate space. 2. Providing for specialized supervision of sexual predators who are in the community by specially trained probation officers with low caseloads, as described in ss. 947.1405(7) and 948.03(5). The sexual predator is subject to specified terms and conditions implemented at sentencing or at the time of release from incarceration, with a requirement that those who are financially able must pay all or part of the costs of supervision. 3. Requiring the registration of sexual predators, with a requirement that complete and accurate ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 855 So. 2d 1281 - Espindola v. State

2. “[a]n offender who meets the sexual predator criteria ... is a sexual predator, and the sentencing court must make a written finding at the time of sentencing that the offender is a sexual predator, ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kelly v. State

3. “creates an inflexible rule that will stigmatize some offenders who are not within the three distinct classes of offenders the Legislature targeted in section 775.21(3)(a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 894 So. 2d 924 - Milks v. State