Lawmakers allege they are doing this to protect children, but they ignore all things dangerous, other criminal types and things physical and the crimes actually happening to children in these protected places, and want folks to ASS-U-ME that former sex offenders are the ONLY danger to children. Clearly children are a pretext for some other goal. i.e., banning folks they don't like for which there is no constitutional right to do so.
Under the guise of today's residency ordinances they try to protect places where children congregate. i.e., schools, day cares etc. No where in the entire nation has anyone, including law enforcement, been able to cite a case where a RSO lived WITHIN the prohibited distance -and- committed a crime AT the protected place. This is a hypothetical scenario that simply does not happen, and has not happened in recorded history; it is hypothetical and not reality.
This is likened to creating a law that says, we will punish the farmer if an orange falls out of a apple tree. Someone could put an orange in a apple tree and it could fall out, but is it likely to happen? Its not reality, its hypothetical.
Now Reality: Crimes are happening to children AT these protected places, caused by people working IN these protected places, how does today's residency ordinance address these crimes? They don't, today's residency laws ignore reality and only focus on hypothetical scenarios, scenarios which ignore the evidence of how crimes are happening; feel good laws, but in reality useless and resource wasteful.
Never forget, if you create a safe zone, then that means you have also created a danger zone!
eAdvocate
2-19-2009 Ohio:
COLUMBUS — Sex offenders would have to move from established residences that are within 1,000 feet of schools, under legislation introduced in the Ohio Senate.
Sen. Tim Schaffer, a Republican from Lancaster, said his Senate Bill 42 would ensure earlier legislation related to where sex offenders live is applied retroactively, regardless of when they were convicted of their crimes.
The state Supreme Court has ruled that the residency restriction cannot be applied retroactively, because the law was too vague, Schaffer said.
--Typical of lawmakers they fail to actually read the court decision. This is not what the court said, instead this is some wild guess at its meaning.
As a result of court decisions, “four convicted sex offenders in my hometown of Lancaster were allowed to live anywhere they chose, as they committed their offenses before the effective date [of the earlier law],” Schaffer said. “Since that case, one of the four gentlemen involved in the appeals decision has already re-offended and is in prison for another sex crime.”
Schaffer’s bill would state that the earlier law applied retroactively, meaning sex offenders could not remain in a residence if it is within 1,000 feet of a school. ..News Source.. by Vindy.com
No comments:
Post a Comment