CT- Safety zone? Sex offender law ‘dead on vine’

This is a roomful of misguided people at work, they have 4 RSOs and want a proximity law allegedly to protect children. Are they expecting a Woodstock? Whether or not a law is in place, its presence is not going to stop someone from committing a new sex offense. After all, there was a law which said, don't commit a sex offense and some were convicted of breaking it, what makes these people think a new ordinance is going to stop crime? Sometimes it is best to be realistic unlike what is happening here.

6-11-2009 Connecticut:

An ordinance hoping to keep convicted sex offenders from entering designated child safety zones died on the table Monday night as town legislators urged proponents to rework the language and wait for state lawmakers to enact legislation that might give the local law more credibility.

“One is always in a stronger position if in fact one has enabling legislation which gives municipalities the authority to take certain actions, and in addition, many times, carries with it the potential for a criminal penalty, which is much more severe,” town attorney John Wayne Fox said.

In Hartford, state Rep. Alfred Camillo Jr. (R-151) of Old Greenwich recently introduced “An Act Authorizing Municipalities to Impose Residency Restrictions on Registered Sexual Offenders,” a bill under review by the Joint Committee on Planning and Development. The proposed bill, if passed as written, would allow towns to enact local laws prohibiting registered sex offenders from living within certain distances of schools and child day care centers.

“The purpose in having a discussion on this was in the hopes of having a better bill, stronger bill rather than any attempt to weaken it in any way,” Mr. Fox said about discussions attorneys had with selectmen and the Representative Town Meeting’s legislative and rules committee, which recommended Monday to postpone the item indefinitely.

The Connecticut Department of Public Safety Sex Offender Registry, found at Ct.gov/dps, currently has four people, all men, listed as living in Greenwich — two in Greenwich, one in Old Greenwich and one in Riverside. Their crimes range from sexual assault to illegally possessing child pornography, and took place between 1998 and 2005.

The proposed town ordinance, which proponents said is similar to laws already in place in Danbury, Ridgefield and New Milford, would designate areas such as public parks, playgrounds, beaches, teen centers, sports and educational facilities as child safety zones. Registered sex offenders entering the marked areas would be subject to a written warning to stay away and a $100 fine if he or she refuses to leave or returns.

Critics of the document cited the constitutionality of the language, which did not allow convicted sex offenders to enter schools, for example, for meetings such as the RTM, but did allow them to enter for voting purposes.

“I’ve heard a lot about the sex offenders and their rights, but what about our children’s rights, what about my grandchildren’s rights, your brothers or your sister’s rights? We have rights, too, and I think it’s about time we took a stand on this,” said Sam Romeo, chairman of the east sector of the Community and Police Partnership. The group, along with the Greenwich Police Department, supported the ordinance, first suggested by Neighborhood Resource Officer Keith Hirsch.

“This bill, the way it’s written right now, just gives the police officer another tool in their tool box to protect our children,” said Mr. Romeo, adding that any thought that police officers might use the ordinance as an excuse to harass sex offenders is “insulting.”

“I don’t think this is going to turn Greenwich into a police state, as some have said. It’s really throwing a red herring into the issue,” he said.

Police Sgt. James Bonney said there are more than 5,000 registered sex offenders in Connecticut, a state that has 92% of offenders complying with the law that requires them, after being convicted and released, to register for 10 years for committing nonviolent crimes and crimes against minor victims, and for a lifetime for committing violent and/or multiple offenses.

“I personally don’t believe you can put a price on child safety,” Sgt. Bonney said. “These offenders have not... I don’t think they’ve paid their debt to society until they’re off the list.

“As Greenwich residents, we should not be allowing Greenwich to be a safe haven for sexual offenders when others towns in the state are making bold statements with legislation on this subject.”

Mr. Romeo said there are more than 30,000 registered sex offenders in neighboring Westchester County, N.Y., and anything can happen.

“You can’t say that this doesn’t happen in our town because it does. It happens everywhere,” Sgt. Bonney said, citing a recent Greenwich arrest of a registered sex offender allegedly hanging out near one of the busiest bus stops in Pemberwick.

Douglas Wells, chairman of the legislative and rules committee, said the goal of the legislation is important, but it’s the bill’s language that needs work.

RTM member James Boutelle agreed that bringing the bill back this fall would be beneficial.

“No other town has been sued?” he said, referring to Officer Hirsch’s claim that other towns with the ordinance have had little to no trouble with their laws. “Well, no other town is Greenwich.

“If we pass an ineffective ordinance, we will pay the price.”

While the ordinance will have to be resurrected and reworked by town attorneys before coming again to the RTM, Officer Hirsch told the Post yesterday he’s willing to give whatever support is necessary.

“The driving force in the town government is anything we can do to help the youth the Town of Greenwich, we should explore it,” he said of getting the legislation out there.

“If the selectman and the lawyers plan to revisit it, we’re definitely going to support them on this.” ..Source.. by Sara Poirier, Assistant Editor