PA- Sex offender rules' efficacy questioned

6-11-2008 Pennsylvania:

Critics say residency restrictions don't prevent future offenses. Easton officials to vote today.

EASTON It makes perfect sense. Who wants a registered sex offender living anywhere near an elementary school?

"It seems to be a no-brainer: 'Let's have these offenders not live close to kids,'" said Diane Moyer with the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape. "It's just not that easy."

As city council considers an ordinance prohibiting where registered sex offenders and predators can live, victim advocates and even a group of prosecuting attorneys argue residency restrictions do little but prevent offenders from getting the help they desperately need.

City council will meet 6 tonight to vote on prohibiting sex offenders and predators from living within 1,000 feet of any school, park, playground, church or child care facility.

Moyer, who is also a member of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, said she can empathize with a community looking to do whatever it can to protect its children. Probation officials certainly wouldn't want a recently paroled sex offender living next door to a day care, she said.

But as residency restrictions become more prevalent, offenders will find themselves living in more rural areas with less law enforcement, fewer treatment resources and the isolation that increases the chances of recidivism, Moyer said.

"You want to make their lives as manageable and accountable as possible," she said.

Keeping tabs on offenders

Several victim advocates, including Moyer, recount stories of paroled sex offenders in Florida, which has a statewide residency prohibition, moving to a bridge underpass because of limited housing options.

"What you most don't want to do is to have a recently released sex offender associating with other offenders," Moyer said. "It just seems to fly in the face of what we know about sex offenders."

City council tabled the proposal two weeks ago to allow for further research. Councilman Ken Brown, the bill's sponsor, said he plans to bring the measure back for a vote after changing the distance from 2,500 feet to 1,000 feet.

The proposal remains otherwise unchanged. When asked about concerns raised by advocacy groups, Brown said no measure would be "100 percent bulletproof," but it would serve a purpose if it prevents even one offender from preying on a child.

-This cliche has been used time and time again, but never supported by any evidence that any crime has ever been prevented by "residency laws." In fact, no one in the entire nation has ever shown a crime committed, by a RSO who lived within a prohibited zone, at the school etc., that the law seeks to prevent. The reason is simple, the real purpose is to push RSOs elsewhere, and not to protect any child. Children are a pretext used by lawmakers to enact banishment laws.

..News Source.. by EDWARD SIEGER, The Express-Times