NH- zoning out sex offenders

Something I continually find interesting is, if the intent of these ordinances is to make it safer for children, how dumb is it to think that only sex offenders make an area unsafe? What about the effect of drug crimes and domestic violence, there are far more victims of those crimes, and a much higher rate of recidivism too. Clearly, the intent here is other than the safety of children!

Another thought, where in state or federal law is there any law that prevents, geographically, a class of people from residing in any specific area. Further, if such law exists, I would think it would have to be enacted by the state or federal government. i.e., During the war there were camps for the Japanese folks here in America. Such laws simply do not exist today.

5-11-2008 New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union recently dropped a civil suit alleging that the city of Dover had violated the rights of Richard Jennings, a convicted sex offender. Instead, an NHCLU lawyer will defend Jennings against charges alleging he violated a city ordinance that prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or daycare facility. The NHCLU disputes the constitutionality of the ordinance.

“It violates Mr. Jennings’ constitutional rights,” said Barbara Keshen, who will defend Jennings in Strafford County Superior Court. “The town exceeded its authority in enacting this ordinance.”

Proponents of the ordinance maintain that it’s a necessary measure to protect the city’s children. Former City Councilor Matt Mayberry proposed the ordinance, which passed in 2005. “He had asked the chief of police at the time about ordinances like this to provide another tool to make the community safer,” said Dover Police Lt. David Terlemezian.

The ordinance unanimously passed the Council. “I wasn’t part of the original drafting, but my understanding is that a good amount of research went into it and the city is confident it’s legal and sound and will survive the challenge,” Terlemezian said.

The NHCLU disagrees.Keshen declined to elaborate on the points she will argue in court but will file a motion this week with more details.

Jennings, 41, is accused of violating the ordinance in November 2007 after he was charged with two felonies for failing to notify police that he had moved from Portsmouth to Dover. The ordinance violation was tacked on after police discovered that Jennings had relocated within 2,500 feet of the My School Kindergarten at 118 Locust St.

Jennings’ was originally convicted of felonious sexual assault on a minor in May 2000. Although Terlemezian did not have details of that case, he said, “it involved a teenage girl that was known to him.” Since the victim was a minor, Jennings is required to register as a sex offender for life.

The NHCLU decided to drop its civil suit after lawyers from the organization concluded that they would be able to get their case heard sooner if they switched to a defense strategy. “If Mr. Jennings wins, then the city will appeal. If the city wins, we will appeal. We thought that we could get it in front of the Supreme Court faster, rather than wait for civil court,” Keshen said.

Defending the rights of a convicted sex offender is a tough sell, but the NHCLU believes the ordinance is unconstitutional because it essentially bans Jennings from living in Dover. The restrictions imposed by the ordinance encompass virtually the entire downtown area, where most affordable housing is located.

“There is no question that the ordinance was put in place by people that believe that these kinds of residential zoning ordinances would protect their children,” Keshen said. “But there is no empirical data to support that. People have a mistaken belief that these ordinances do anything to protect children.”

Keshen said a number of organizations that deal with domestic and sexual abuse have found that restrictive zoning is ineffective. “The reality is that these ordinances don’t do a wit to protect children,” she said.

Keshen offered a number of more effective ways to protect children from convicted sex criminals. Strict supervision of offenders is one way to cut down on second offenses, she said. Some states have instituted systems that use GPS devices to track sex offenders. Quality treatment that is readily available to convicts is another way to combat repeat offenses. “As most professionals that work in this area will tell you, sex offenders are particularly amenable to treatment,” Keshen said.

The idea that convicted sex criminals still can’t be trusted around children even after serving their time and being released from prison could reflect poorly on the state’s correctional system. Although he doesn’t work in corrections, Terlemezian doesn’t believe the state system is at fault. “My speculation is that it’s rooted more in the human psyche,” he said, referring to the reasons people commit sexual offenses.

According to Terlemezian, this is not the first time the ordinance has been violated. Typically, if the police become aware of a sex criminal living within 2,500 feet of a school or daycare center, they give that person 30 days to relocate. If the offenders move, the summons never gets filed and they don’t get charged. But Jennings has refused to move. “He’s chosen not to plead guilty,” Terlemezian said.

If found guilty of the violation, Jennings would face a $500 fine. But, if he is not found guilty, the ordinance could ultimately be overturned.

“I don’t think it’s likely,” Terlemezian said. ..more.. by Patrick Law