This article surveys the requirement of registration as a sex offender and ultimately concludes that the registry fails to protect children and society from individuals who commit sex-related crimes; furthermore, it concludes that the registry fails to prevent sex crimes from occurring. The author studies the legislative history of various Acts related to sex crimes as well as statistics on sex crimes to surmise that Congress in large part relied on myths about sex offenders in enacting legislation like the Adam Walsh Act. As a result, the registry is incapable of preventing the commission of sex offenses. The author further resolves that the registry endorses and perpetuates hatred toward sex offenders by creating a stigma whereby sex offenders are unable to reintegrate into society and lead productive lives. The article concludes by proposing that the registry is counterproductive as it causes great harm to individuals without offering a greater positive benefit to society as a whole.

This Article identifies as problematic the intersection of Florida’s Immunity Statute and its current Castle Doctrine, which presumes reasonable fear where one acts in self-defense in the “castle.” The coupling together of immunity and the presumption of reasonable fear creates a bar to prosecution in Castle self-defense cases. The Article addresses problems associated with the lack of guidelines to ensure the equal application of the law to self-defense cases, and the lack of procedural tools available for the assertion of immunity arising from a self-defense act.