5-5-2011 Massachusetts:
FRAMINGHAM — Opposition to a proposed sex offender bylaw mounted last night as Town Meeting debated whether to prohibit registered offenders from loitering near children.
Town Meeting adjourned for the night without making a decision on the Board of Selectmen's proposal. Modeled after bylaws in Ashland and Natick, it would prevent Level 2 and 3 offenders from hanging out near designated "safety zones," which include schools and school bus stops.
Precinct 4 member Linda Lackey, who opposes the article, shared a personal story of what she called an encounter with a predator when she was a girl.
"I can speak to you today because I'm not Sarah Pryor," Lackey told fellow voters, referring to the 9-year-old Wayland girl who disappeared in 1985. Her remains surfaced years later two miles from her home and the case remains unsolved.
Lackey recounted being stalked after stopping to buy a Coke while walking home from a summer program at Dunning Elementary School.
When a man followed her from a gas station in Nobscot and then drove past her over and over, she ran door to door in a neighborhood, searching for help.
Lackey lucked out, she said, when she finally found a resident who was home. They called police.
"How would this bylaw have helped me?" Lackey demanded. "Many of you may feel that this bylaw is sending a message," but sex offenders "aren't just loitering in safety zones."
While the proposal has support from Town Meeting's Standing Committee on Public Safety, the Government Study Committee is recommending voters turn it down.
That committee's chairman, Karl Thober, said it's in the community's best interest to protect its residents and children from molesters.
"At the same time, we think that the bylaw is well intended, but poorly written," he said.
Selectman Ginger Esty and board Chairman Jason Smith, who worked on the proposal, defended it as a "first step" and an important tool for police.
Some members said they support the bylaw, which comes with a $300 fine per violation.
"It's not perfect," Kathy Vassar of Precinct 1 said. "It won't prevent every crime, but it's a tool for the Framingham Police Department to use."
Dan Gittelsohn of Precinct 14 urged support, even proposing several amendments to make the rules tighter. One suggestion was to require that offenders could only "loiter" for two minutes before violating the bylaw, not 10 as proposed.
"We should give the pervert no more than two minutes to walk by a safety zone," he said. "I do not want them anywhere near our children, and I'm sure most of you don't either."
He said a friend of his was molested. "That experience has impacted his whole life. He's in his 50s now. To this day he does not live a normal, happy life."
Some members said they oppose the bylaw because it's unconstitutional.
Precinct 12 member Geoffrey Froner said it would infringe on the civil rights of an offender.
"Most of them just want to be citizens and get on with their lives," Froner said.
Precinct 7's Mel Warshaw said the bylaw would give residents a false sense of security, and he said it could be easily challenged in court.
Town Meeting will pick up the debate following special Town Meeting, which starts tonight at 7:30 in Nevins Hall. ..Source.. Danielle Ameden/Daily News staff
May 5, 2011
Framingham Town Meeting split on sex offender bylaw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Every story we hear that happened to someone like 500 yrs ago, always involved a level 3 hardcore criminal. unfortunately , ms. lackey, most sex offenders are not dangerous and do not re-offend. i would estimate that about 697,000 listed and registered sex offenders are basically harmless individuals that made one mistake and paid the price dearly for their crime. so once again passing another unnecessary law that will not prevent or stop new crimes but will only harm people already being watched by law enforcement will be a waste of money, waste of time, and most importantly will do nothing to actually prevent new crimes. most sex crimes aren't commited by strangers. theyre commited by people who know the victimns already - uncles, coaches, stepdads, babysitters, etc, so once again passing laws that target crimes committed by strangers is completely 100% useless. if you want to be helpful, tell people to watch their own kids, keep their kids off the internet, and dont allow them the use of cellphones until theyre old enough. thanks for listening.
I find it very good and very interesting that Daniel would point the resolution of the problem back to the family! That is exactly where the responsibility for this kind of problem should be handled. The Government has no business or authority or jursdiction in this type of matter. The government cannot in any way hope to do any good in "the community". They just can't help, they can only destory.
Post a Comment