OH- Restrictions on residency don't really help kids

What do "residency laws" ignore that makes them further punishment? The premise: "where children are likely to congregate," these laws ignore WITH/WITHOUT SUPERVISION, and other factors as well? If residency laws were limited to places where children congregate WITHOUT SUPERVISION, then they may make some sense. Without such they are a play on words, wordsmithing, to permit further punishment for registrants.

11-25-2008 Ohio:

Sex-offender registration is not a complex idea.

Society has a right to keep tabs on people who have proven themselves capable of harming another person sexually. Children especially need to be protected.

-Even this premise is a joke because children have been harmed, in more circumstances and ways by non sex offenders than by sex offenders, and those offenders are ignored under registration and residency laws.

However, when Ohio joined dozens of other states in restricting where registered sex offenders could live, it did little to protect children.

Overwhelmingly, studies have shown that registered sex offenders are convicted of assaults on people they know. Assaults on strangers do occur, but they are not the main problem.

Ohio already prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a place where children are likely to gather – schools, parks or day care facilities.

The issue now in Ohio is whether registered sex offenders who committed their crimes before 1993 — or who lived at their current address before then — should be forced to move.

The question should not be about where they live, but should be about behavior – what do they do?

Our legal system is predicated on punishment and rehabilitation.

Registered sex offenders who have served their punishments and not had any repeat incidents should be allowed to remain in their homes. If they re-offend, they are unfortunately likely to do it with someone they already know. Where they live does not matter.

One of the effects of rules like these is that it would tend to force registered sex offenders into rural areas. It they cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care facility, they have little option in some communities.

Many home owners would likely say — good riddance! But the issue should be their behavior — if they are not committing crimes, they should be allowed to remain where they are.

Forced removals are not American. We do not banish our citizens. If a crime is committed, the person is caught, convicted and punished. Once that punishment is served, it is presumed that they want to get on with their lives.

This is how it should be.

Sexual assaults are heinous crimes and sexual abuse of children deserves harsh punishment.

Ohio should not expand its residency limitations for sex offenders, a law that is unlikely to do much to protect children. ..News Source.. Opinion of: Sprinfield News-Sun