Sex Offenders Residency rules endanger us

8-11-2009 National:

Attention should be paid to Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum's recent comments calling for reconsideration of sex-offender residence laws.

Those who question the utility of such policies often are accused of being unconcerned about the safety of children or advocating for sex offenders. The finger pointing becomes a diversion from an inconvenient truth: No research exists to confirm that residential restrictions reduce sexual reoffending, protect children or prevent sex crimes.

Such laws do create transience and homelessness, making dangerous offenders more difficult to monitor and undermining the reintegration of lower-risk offenders.

Anyone who suggests that the current Julia Tuttle bridge fiasco was not caused by local ordinances needs only to look at the data: The number of sex offenders registered as transient in Miami-Dade County has grown consistently since local ordinances were passed in 2005, and in June 2009 the number of offenders with no residential address was 175.

The secretary of the Department of Corrections told county commissioners that ample housing was available under the state's 1,000-foot restriction, but that 2,500 feet makes it almost impossible for sex offenders to locate housing.

Many offenders seek shelter with family members after incarceration, but housing restrictions eliminate those options.

Why should we care? Because if they can't find a place to live, law-enforcement agents and probation officers won't be able to supervise them closely. Does that sound like effective crime-prevention policy?

No compelling reason has ever been offered as to why the state's 1,000-foot restriction was not adequate. If the rationale of these laws is to prevent offenders from living within viewing distance of children, why would 1,000 feet (more than three football fields) be insufficient for this purpose? A recent Florida study found no evidence that increasing distance buffers provides any public protection benefit. No differences were seen in the recidivism rates of sex offenders who lived within 1,000, 1,500 or 2,500 feet of schools and daycares. In other words, sex offenders who lived closer to schools and daycares were not more likely to reoffend, and living farther from schools and daycares did not diminish the probability of sexual reoffending.

Lawmakers, researchers, mental-health professionals and criminal-justice practitioners are all on the same side -- to prevent sexual violence and protect kids. The most important question is how to best accomplish these goals. Unfortunately, the best intentions do not always translate into the best practices. It is time to admit that the emperor has no clothes and start working together to formulate effective solutions to the problem of sexual abuse. ..Source.. by JILL S. LEVENSON, jlevenson@lynn.edu (Jill S. Levenson is associate professor and sex crimes researcher at Lynn University in Boca Raton. She is also chairperson of Broward County's Sexual Offender Residence Task Force, appointed by Broward County commissioners.)