RI- Debate continues over state’s new sex-offender bill

11-28-2008 Rhode Island:

Late in June, in the waning hours of the General Assembly’s 2008 session, a law passed making it a felony for any registered sex offender to live within 300 feet of a Rhode Island school.

The three-paragraph law dropped Rhode Island squarely into the middle of a heated national debate over the treatment of sex offenders who have served their prison sentences.

For the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Hannah Gallo, D-Cranston, and supporters of the measure, the new law is a common-sense response to citizens’ repeated concerns over registered sex offenders who end up living near elementary schools, playgrounds, bus stops and other places children congregate.

“To me,” Gallo said, “it just doesn’t make sense as to why we would let sex offenders live near a school where they can stare out the window at children and perhaps (absolute proof there has never been such a case) go out and prey” on them.

-Nowhere in the nation has there been a case of a RSO -living within xx feet of a school- that has preyed on a child walking to school. Whenever a child walking to school has been accosted, it has been by someone driving or walking near the school, and when such offenders have been caught, it has never been a registered sex offender living within xx feet of the school. This residency premise is a congered up myth with no basis in fact or prior act.

Opponents say that all the new law accomplishes is to make Rhode Island the latest state to try to slap a one-size-fits-all solution on a complex problem, and that there is no data to support the theory that restricting where sex offenders live helps to keep them from repeating their crimes.

“The law is ill-conceived and incredibly vague,” Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “Quite simply, it’s a bad idea.”

He points out that in 2006, four years after Iowa became one of the first states to implement restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live, its statewide association of county prosecutors spoke out publicly against the law.

“The Iowa County Attorneys Association believes that the 2,000-foot residency restriction for persons who have been convicted of sex offenses involving minors does not provide the protection that was originally intended,” the association said in a statement.

THE IDEA for Rhode Island law, Gallo said, came from her constituents concerned about sex offenders in the community. One of the most recent examples, she said, was a case last year in which a registered sex offender moved in less than a block from Cranston’s Glen Hills Elementary School, and there was little that could be done to assuage parents’ worries.

There are about 1,550 registered sex offenders in the state, according to the attorney general’s office, which works with state Department of Corrections as it follows sex offenders after their release. Paula A. Kocon, a special-project coordinator for the Department of Corrections’ Sex Offender and Community Notification Unit, said the state uses a three-tier ranking system to indicate an offender’s likelihood of repeating his or her crime. Level 1 is considered the least likely and Level 3 is considered the most likely.

Kocon was at the Warwick police station Monday night as officials tried to answer worried parents’ questions about Level 3 sex offender Leo Nadeau’s recent move to the Craig Street area, less than a half-mile from the complex with Toll Gate High School and Winman Junior High. Parents were notified of Nadeau’s arrival in the area in accordance with state laws that allow a public notification process for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders.

Parents repeatedly expressed a fierce desire to protect their children from harm and said it didn’t seem fair that their sense of safety in their own neighborhood had to be sacrificed for one individual. They noted that Nadeau’s house was across the street from a playground basketball court, which has led many of them to keep their children away from that park.

“So our lives are disrupted,” one man shouted out from the back of the room.

COL. STEPHEN P. McCARTNEY, the Warwick police chief, said the department has had many such meetings, and he understood residents’ fears.

“The problem is that it is a very complicated and complex issue,” said McCartney, who is also president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association. “The first thing you have to keep in mind is that we are talking about people who have finished their incarceration and, in a sense, paid their debt to society.

“At the same time, we have to understand that from a psychological point of view, parents are very concerned and want to control the environment to make it safe for their children, so they put a lot of pressure on their legislators. Then a law gets passed, and it’s our job to enforce it.”

In the neighboring city of Cranston, Col. Stephen McGrath says he supports the intent of the new law, but sees some problems with enforcement since it is not specific as to what boundaries are to be used in determining the 300 feet and what exactly defines a school. He also said that he shared the view of some national studies that say residency restrictions can give citizens a false sense of security.

“People have to remember that these offenders can drive and are free to travel about,” he said. “There is not a law that prohibits them from visiting someone who lives near a school and staying there for a matter of hours. Obviously, we want to strengthen laws that protect people, but some of the logistics of actually enforcing them can be problematic.”

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S office also responded cautiously to the new law.

“We are aware that there may be problems with this law, and we are also aware of the argument against such laws, which is based on studies that show that in at least 9 out of 10 cases of child molestation, the victim knows their attacker well through either family or friends,” Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general’s office said. “But Senator Gallo is trying to address an issue that is a matter of public safety and much concern, and she deserves a lot of credit for that.”

Brown said his office has not ruled out a court challenge to the law. With a little over 20 states having such laws, there have been several such challenges across the country, he said, with varying results.

“Among other things, this law does not differentiate between Level 1 and Level 3 offenders,” Brown said. “And it also has no expiration, so conceivably people could be limited as to where they live for the rest of their lives.

“It absolutely gives the public a false sense of security because the statistics are abundantly clear that more than 90 percent of child molestation crimes are committed by family and friends of the victim.”

GALLO SAID SHE was aware of reports that challenge the effective of residence restrictions, but she, along with many fellow legislators, still thought that buffer zones were a good idea.

State Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston, co-chairman of a House committee on sexual offenders, said he supported such restrictions because even if the minority of cases involved strangers, there were still horrifying occurrences such as the nationally chronicled New Jersey case of 7-year-old Meagan Kanka, who was molested and murdered by a convicted sex offender who lived near her.

“These guys, for whatever reason, have some sick, twisted monster in them,” Palumbo said, “and if we let them live near our schools, they’ll be sitting there looking at the kids, and it will be tempting for them.”

Said Gallo: “Children are basically trusting, and when they’re walking to school, they’re more likely to be more receptive to someone who lives in their neighborhood who approaches them rather than a complete stranger.

“I think parents have the right to know that their children can walk to school safely. They should not have to live in fear of their neighbors.” ..News Source.. by Barbara Polichetti, Journal Staff Writer