CT- How we deal with sex offenders

Here we have the same type of law as is found in a "residency law" both laws based on how lawmakers THINK crimes occur and not on how crimes actually occur. That is why this will be another failed effort to face again as time goes on. Far too many lawmakers design laws based on misconceived perceptions and myths, they ignore the evidence that stares them in the face: PAST CRIMES, the facts are there. Continue to ignore those facts and you will waste vast amounts of time and money on useless efforts and never achieve prevention or actual protection. Todays laws are "feel good" "sounds good" laws which do nothing to protect anyone.

8-16-2009 Connecticut:

The town's new sex offender ordinance, passed Thursday by the Board of Selectman and now before the RTM for final approval, makes reasonable concessions to protect the rights of offenders who have already been punished for their crimes.

But, as distasteful as it might be to say given the offenses of those concerned, it still does raise important constitutional questions, and it could leave the town vulnerable to future lawsuits.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Greenwich resident who supports the new rule, admitted as much when he told reporter Neil Vigdor: "The courts across the country have divided on these issues, and it's still an evolving area in terms of constitutional law."

The ordinance bans registered sex offenders from loitering at schools, parks, playgrounds and beaches. It is the second time the proposed rule has made the rounds of town government. After an earlier version was dropped, officials added exceptions to allow registered sex offenders to enter "child safety zones" to vote, attend public meetings, drop off or pick up their children at school and meet with teachers to discuss their children's education.

But the central issue remains: After a person serves a court-ordered sentence for a crime, is it constitutional to continue to punish him or her, as this ordinance would?

It's a particularly complicated question in the case of sex offenders because their crimes, especially those that target children, are so horrible, and because some, not all, research indicates high recidivism rates.

We as a society, not just this town, still have not come up with a perfect method of protecting children while respecting the Constitution when it comes to dealing with sex offenders who have completed their sentences. Even the sex registry itself is a too-blunt tool fraught with problems.

But, ironically, we think the best solution was raised this week by an outspoken opponent of Greenwich's new law, Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut, who told Mr. Vigdor: "If we as a society determine that sex offenders cannot be released as free individuals, then maybe what we need to consider is stiffer penalties in the first go-around and not stigmatize them and prevent them from living as free individuals once released."

We couldn't agree more. Much too often we report cases in which those convicted of sex crimes are let off too easily. Just this week we reported on a Westport man sent to jail for two years for being caught with child pornography while on probation. He'd previously been convicted of luring children to sit naked on shaving-cream-filled balloons at Compo Beach in Stamford. He served no jail time for that conviction.

That's but one incident in which the legal system is not doing enough to protect potential victims, but it would not be difficult to dig up many more like it, enough to fill this space many times over.

The truth is we would not need constitutionally questionable laws if we dealt with sexual perpetrators properly. In some cases, many perhaps, it would be appropriate to keep them locked up for good. After all, sexual assault inflicts a life sentence of trauma on many innocent victims.

As for this most recent ordinance, officials have built in reasonable protections. The RTM should pass it, and the town should stand up to whatever legal challenges might come its way. ..Source.. by Greenwich Time