BOSTON - A state representative has sponsored bills that would ban sex offenders from living in public housing.
State Rep. Bradley Jones, R-North Reading, the House Republican leader, proposed two bills that would ban level two and three sex offenders from public housing and from state-subsidized housing in hotels and motels.
Level two and three sex offenders are those who are considered to have a moderate or high risk of reoffending respectively and whose convictions are included in a public database.
Supporters of the proposal say it would protect people living in public housing. "Public subsidized housing is paid for by the taxpayers," said state Rep. Todd Smola, R-Warren, a bill co-sponsor. "To guarantee we protect the public safety of individuals in the program is extremely important."
But opponents say the bills would put the public at risk. Larni Levy, an attorney and director of the alternative commitment and registration support unit of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, which represents indigent clients accused of sex offenses, said the move would increase homelessness among sex offenders.
"The legislation is ill advised and comes under the rubric of legislation that sounds good but actually jeopardizes public safety," Levy told the Legislature's Joint Committee on Housing, which is considering the bill.
Similar bills have been proposed in the past, but they have never passed the Legislature.
The federal government in 1998 instituted a ban on certain sex offenders living in federally subsidized public housing. This bill would extend the ban to any state-subsidized public housing.
Under current law, state housing authorities have the discretion to ban a sex offender from public housing, but they can also use that discretion to allow a sex offender into housing. The law is also not specific to sex offenders - it applies to anyone who has engaged in criminal activity which, if repeated, would threaten other tenants.
Smola, in an interview, called the bills a "reasonable proposal." He said he understands the need to balance the rights of sex offenders with other public housing residents, but he said the state should "err on the side of public safety."
Levy countered that if sex offenders are barred from public housing, many will become homeless and be separated from support networks of family, doctors or therapists. They will become harder for probation and parole officers to track. They will also lose their stability, which can be a factor in recidivism. "Frankly, no one wants sex offenders to be homeless," Levy said.
The Committee for Public Counsel Services also raised questions about whether the bill would be unconstitutional. Attorneys pointed to a 2011 case in which a sex offender challenged a law banning him from a nursing home. The Supreme Judicial Court found that without an individualized finding that the man constituted a danger to public safety, banning him from a nursing home unconstitutionally infringed on his rights to liberty and property and his right to due process.
A separate court case is currently pending before the Supreme Judicial Court over whether the city of Lynn can legally restrict where sex offenders can live.
Dr. Laurie Guidry, a clinical forensic psychologist and president of Massachusetts Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, said she understands why people have concerns about where registered sex offenders are living. But she thinks any policy needs to take account the fact that sex offenders are less likely to reoffend if they have stable housing.
"When we look at the research, we learn that stable housing, which goes hand in hand with employment, helps support positive outcomes with regards to reducing recidivism," Guidry said.
Guidry said she believes it would be more effective to have policies that allow housing decisions to be made on a case by case basis, looking at someone's criminal history but also at whether they are in treatment, are being supervised on probation, are connected with appropriate services and other factors.
"The idea would be to find a way to recognize the concerns that people have and also see if there are more effective ways we can keep the community safe while housing individuals who have these kind of histories," Guidry said. "Because doing so tends to keep the public safer than not doing so."
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker's administration has not yet taken a position on the bills. "The safety of families and children everywhere in Massachusetts – including in public housing – is hugely important to the Baker Administration, and the Governor will carefully review this proposal if it reaches his desk," said Felix Browne, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety.
Paul Bailey, executive director of the social service agency Springfield Partners for Community Action, who previously worked for the state overseeing housing authorities, said he sees both sides of the issue. "I certainly wouldn't want anyone to be harmed," Bailey said.
But Bailey said he recalls when criminal records first became available to housing authorities, and some authorities would deny a person housing solely because he had a criminal record, without looking at the details of the record. "You've got to look into it a little deeper," Bailey said. "You have to be careful, take every case individually. " ..Source.. by Shira Schoenberg
No comments:
Post a Comment