7-24-2009 Minnesota:
When a Level 2 sex offender recently moved into Otsego, it caused people some anxiety. Around that same time the city passed an ordinance governing where a Level 3 sex offender could live, and most importantly to many people, where such an at-risk offender could not live.
For many, the answer is simple: Do not allow sex offenders of any kind near any children at any time. However, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) Web site states, “There are no provisions in Minnesota’s registration law which prohibit registered offenders from living in the vicinity of a school or day care.”
It does go on to say that restrictions can be placed on certain offenders.
The city of Minneapolis Web site clarifies that such a provision can be made in the case of an offender committing a sexual crime whereby he or she had gotten access to a school or day care in committing the sexual crime. In that case the person would not be allowed near such places.
According to Nancy Sabine, director of the Jacob Wetterling Research Center (JWRC), classifying all sex offenders as predatory and harmful and restricting where they can live is a flawed approach in dealing with sex offenders.
“Residency laws don’t do one shred of good,” Sabine claims. “We’ve worked all the Minnesota cases backwards from 2007 to see if any residency restrictions would have prevented one crime. Not one. The crimes are happening because they are connected to relationships. They are people you trust, so you go off with them to your house, their house, to the park or wherever.”
She contends a sex offender living near a school or playground has no significance.
“Think of how many crimes you see committed in those two areas. These sex crimes to children are committed on the way to school or on the way home from school by a neighbor, a friend, a civic leader like a Boy Scout or Girl Scout leader and that kind of thing,” Sabine explains.
One of the classic examples, the JWRC director says, is that these zoned residencies keep the offender away from children at schools or day cares, but while kids are at these places during the day, most offenders are away at work. In essence the system is restricting where the offender sleeps at night, she points out.
“It’s ridiculous. We don’t think it through far enough to make sound public policy,” Sabine says. “What we’re doing is grandstanding around one of the most loaded issues in the public’s mind. Politicians pass all these regulations, and the public thinks they’re doing well, but we don’t see any change in things.”
It is ironic, but Sabine says the very foundation that was so influential in getting the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act passed, is now speaking out against its widespread misuse. She says the law’s intent mandated that violent sex offenders get placed on a registry. It was meant to be just one tool in a tool kit that dealt with serious, violent and patterned sex offenders. Now, however, it is being applied to all sex offenders.
The JWRC director adds the misuse is caused because everyone who has committed a sex crime is registered on the Predatory Offender Registry, and that there are many sex crimes that are not predatory in nature.
Sabine explains: “Non-predatory crimes include things like public urination and what we call “Romeo and Juliet” situations where you might have a 19-year-old getting caught having sex with a 15-year-old which is beyond the three-year age limit (difference in age of someone over 18 years old and someone under the legal age). These are two kids who care about each other, and it’s not predatory. We don’t want the same kind of punishment levied on these kinds of situations as we do the Alfonso Rodriguezes of the world who steal young women like Dru (Sjodin).”
Other lower level sex crimes Sabine talks about that are included in the offender registry include oral sex at school and sexting (when people send pornographic images of themselves or others via their cell phones). These are sex crimes juveniles commit that are added to the sex offender registry, but crimes Sabine maintains are not predatory.
“These are good kids making poor choices that harm other people,” Sabine says, “especially when they share the photos. But, I want to be clear; there are no lower level sexual crimes that are excusable. We are all for preventing every single act of sexual harm we can.”
Research shows, Sabine continues, that treatment and supervision is far more effective with juvenile sex offenders, and that 97 percent of those juveniles on the registry never offend as adults.
But Sabine has issues with more than juvenile offenders getting classified with the more serious sex offenders. She says the way the system is set up now does a disservice to everyone, including the offender who is not a predator.
“If you keep using a one-size-fits-all approach,” Sabine says, “you keep confusing who is doing the deed, how they are doing it, where they’re doing it and more specifically and most importantly, what works best in preventing and reducing those kinds of crimes.”
Sabine’s idea of a predatory Level 3 sex offender is someone who willfully victimizes another person, often done in a manipulative, conniving and pre-planned manner. Often, she says, they are crimes of aggression and less sexual in nature but because they are sexual crimes, people cannot separate the two.
As with abduction crimes that have declined over the past 15 years due to better prevention methods to keep kids safe, Sabine wants to see the same trend evolve in the case of sex oriented crimes. The approach has to change, though.
“The more we allow hatred to drive our choices, the less likely our families will come forward to get help for these kids who are doing harmful acts. They’re just going to hide it,” Sabine contends.
She quotes a statistic that says 90 percent of all sex criminals incarcerated every year in Minnesota prisons are first-time offenders.
“That means we are growing sex offenders, and we are growing them in our homes,” Sabine warns. “People think they are coming from somewhere else so nobody is getting them help.”
In 19 years of dealing with law enforcement agencies in issues involving sexual exploitation, Sabine says of the 78 families that experienced the most heinous crimes during that time frame, just two perpetrators had any previous sex offenses.
“That’s staggering to me,” Sabine says. “We keep going after the monsters that don’t exist.” ..Source.. by Bob Grawey, Staff writer
July 24, 2009
MN- Too close to home
June 14, 2009
PA- Doubt cast on whether residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders keeps children safer
6-14-2009 Pennsylvania:
Middletown Borough in Dauphin County has joined a list of other Pennsylvania communities that restrict where convicted sex offenders can live. The problem is, several studies seem to show, such laws don't keep children safer.
Lauren Taylor is executive director of the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board, which evaluates everyone accused of a sex crime to determine their risk to society. Taylor said she is no apologist for sex offenders and would not dictate what municipalities decide to do. But she also visits municipalities considering such laws at their invitation to arm them with the facts she has gathered.
Among them, she said, "research shows there is no correlation between residency restrictions and reducing sex offenses against children or improving the safety of children."
"If you're going to do it, make an informed decision instead of letting emotions lead you to a decision that is meaningless in the goal you are trying to reach," she said.
Rodney Horton, president of Middletown Borough Council, said he has read those studies and understands the argument. But he believes Middletown's law, which keeps offenders 500 feet from places children gather, sends a message.
"We're sending a message that sex crime, especially toward children, is a major issue," he said. "When a community has endured many offenses like Middletown has, you can't sit idly by." ..Source.. by MONICA VON DOBENECK, Of The Patriot-News
June 3, 2009
CA- La Verne adds penalties to laws regulating sex-offenders living in the city
6-3-2009 California:
LA VERNE - The City Council has revised its city codes to criminalize registered sex offenders who live within 2,000 feet of a public or private school or any park where children regularly gather.
The law, passed Monday night, was created to "protect the citizens of La Verne from sexual predators. That's the ultimate goal," police Capt. Mike Wiggins said.
If a sex offender breaks the rule, the punishment will be a misdemeanor, an arrestable offense, Wiggins said.
Before passage of the ordinance, there was no penalty for violating the law.
Wiggins said he believes the sex offender law is a necessary one and would have prevented 48-year-old Steven J. Napoli about three weeks ago from moving into the 3000 block of Knollwood Avenue less than 300 feet from Las Flores Park.
The Police Department created a special bulletin "sex offender community notification" about the man. The bulletin can be viewed online at The ordinance, which had its first reading Monday, will take effect 30 days after its final passage.
The La Verne law and other similar ones are "pure nonsense," said Paul Shannon, spokesman for an organization (RSOL) that advocates for reforming sex offender laws.
"They have no impact on protecting children and they promote the further demonization of people," Shannon said. "The term sex offender lumps together extremely different types of behavior."
Registered sex offenders can range from youths at 17, 18 or 19 years old who had sex with an underage girlfriends in high school or exhibitionists who are caught urinating in public and seen by someone under the age of 18, Shannon said.
"Residential restrictions or Jessica's Law, they lump all people together who pose no threat to children," Shannon said. "Of those that do, fortunately, the rate of recidivism is one of the lowest of any crime."
Wiggins said there was 35 sex offenders living in La Verne, though California's Registered Sex Offenders Megan's Law site on Tuesday listed 24 sex offenders.
The site had 186 total registrants for adjacent Pomona and 24 for San Dimas.
Unincorporated Los Angeles County and Walnut are among the areas that have passed similar ordinances.
Fear drives the creation of laws for sex offenders, Shannon said.
"People are more afraid of sex offenders than people labeled terrorists," he said.
Ultimately, Shannon said he believes restrictions should be judged on a case-by-case basis with the ultimate goal of re-integration into society.
Shannon said new laws dealing with sex texting, where teenagers in high schools send nude photos of classmates, can also leave people branded as sex offenders.
"The vast majority of people on the sex offender registry in the U.S. pose no danger to children whatsoever," he said. ..Source.. by Wes Woods II, Staff Writer
May 10, 2009
NJ- N.J. court rejects sex-offender residency bans
Folks, I could not resist. The NJ high court said "local residency ordinances frustrate the purpose of Megan's law" invalidating all local residency ordinances.
So lawmakers say, "OK, we will give the power to local authorities to enact local residency laws (read article below), or state lawmakers will create a statewide residency law."
Am I missing something here? What makes lawmakers think that the high court -after new local ordinaces are enacted- by whatever means, will not declare those ordinances illegal?
Hence, my grapic as applied to lawmakers.
5-10-2009 New Jersey:
The New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday invalidated about 120 municipal ordinances that restricted where convicted sex offenders could live.
In its four-page opinion, the court merely upheld a lower court ruling that nullified sex-offender residency laws in Cherry Hill and Galloway Township, Atlantic County.
But the unanimous decision was seen as the last word in a four-year battle over whether towns have the right to ban sex offenders from living in certain areas.
State politicians on both sides of the aisle quickly responded to the court's ruling, noting that four bills with bipartisan support are pending in the Legislature to give towns the ability to create "pedophile-free zones."
Sen. Bill Baroni (R., Mercer) said the court's ruling "prevents towns from defending their most vulnerable citizens from predators."
Courts have consistently held that the local ordinances do more harm than good because they interfere with the statewide Megan's Law, a complex scheme established to handle paroled sex offenders.
Under that law - named for Megan Kanka, a 7-year-old Mercer County girl raped and murdered in 1994 by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender - those with sex-crime records must register with local authorities.
The information in the registry cannot be used to deny housing to offenders, but the courts found that is what the local ordinances did.
The Cherry Hill ordinance made virtually the entire township off-limits to those convicted of a sex offense.
The courts found that local ordinances could frustrate sex offenders' attempts to find stable housing and employment, and could increase the risk of reoffending.
Severely restricting where sex offenders can live has not been shown to deter them from committing similar crimes, said Frank Corrado, who represented the offender who challenged the Galloway ordinance.
"The net impact is to drive them underground," he said.
Dan Keashen, an aide to Cherry Hill Mayor Bernie Platt, said giving municipalities the right to make their own rules regarding sex offenders is "common-sense legislation."
"Local elected officials are the ones on the ground. They're the ones who hold public safety as a core mission," he said.
When arguing before the Supreme Court, Cherry Hill's attorney asked the justices to provide guidance on how the township could modify its ordinance to satisfy the court.
In their written opinion, the justices refused to "answer hypothetical questions about un-enacted ordinances."
In 2005, Cherry Hill and Galloway passed nearly identical laws that banned convicted sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks, churches, or other places where children might congregate.
Two sex offenders in Cherry Hill and one in Galloway - a Richard Stockton College freshman who violated the law when he moved into his dorm - quickly challenged.
The offenders in Cherry Hill, James Barclay and Jeffrey Finguerra, were living in the Hillside Motel on Route 38 with the approval of their parole officers.
The challenges became test cases for municipalities across the state that had enacted or were considering similar restrictions on sex offenders.
In a March interview, Richard Kanka, the father of Megan Kanka, said he thought some townships had gone "to the extreme" in limiting where sex offenders could live.
"No one wants them, but they have to live somewhere," he said. "My main concern is, we don't want them hanging around schools and bus stops. That would be like having an alcoholic living next to a liquor store. It's too tempting."
Keashen said Cherry Hill leaders now would turn their attention to getting a law passed in the Legislature, but he said he recognized that questions would remain about how far municipalities could go without clashing with Megan's Law.
"The issue isn't going to go away," he said. "We're going to continue the public discourse." ..News Source.. by Troy Graham, Inquirer Staff Writer
May 8, 2009
NJ- Area officials say towns should be able to decide where pedophiles live
Restricting where registrants live is not going to prevent new sex crimes, the Supreme court is correct in nullifying local ordinances. Local officials refuse to review how crimes are committed instead settling for sounds-good ordinances for which there is no proof they make anyone safer.
5-8-2009 New Jersey:
Local leaders and activists reacted strongly yesterday to the New Jersey Supreme Court's invalidation of laws governing where convicted sex offenders may live.
Such laws in Hamilton and Robbinsville established within the past four years were among those in more than 100 New Jersey towns overturned by the ruling.
The decision is an example of "the Supreme Court of New Jersey being completely out of touch with the families" of the state, said state Sen. Bill Baroni, R-Hamilton.
"What the Supreme Court did ... is take away local towns' ability to protect their own children," Baroni said. He added municipalities should be able to decide where sex offenders can live.
The Supreme Court ruled that such ordinances are in conflict with Megan's Law, which requires sex offenders to keep officials notified of their whereabouts and obtain approval from a parole officer when choosing a dwelling place.
Robbinsville Councilman David Boyne, who supported his town's sex offender residency ordinance, said he was "relatively upset" with the Supreme Court decision.
"We have to restrict where (sex offenders) live. It's protection for the kids," said Boyne, adding it was not enough for sex offenders to register with the state.
"If (the township ordinance) prevented one occurrence, the law was great," said Boyne. He said New Jersey legislators don't have the courage to create a statewide residency restriction law. In the past, legislators have argued for a unifying law on sex offenders that would expand Megan's Law so that sex offenders cannot live near schools and other places children gather.
Richard Kanka, father of Megan, the Hamilton girl who was raped and murdered in 1994 and for whom Megan's Law is named, said yesterday the state's judicial system is user-friendly to sex offenders and not to victims or future victims.
"So we prevent weapons and guns around a school, but it's OK to have a sex offender living right next door? I don't get it," said Kanka.
One bill (A-641) has already been introduced in the state Legislature that would explicitly allow towns to enact their own restrictions on sex offenders' residency. The proposed law would allow municipalities to enact 2,000-foot buffers around certain locations but disallow ordinances that made it impossible for sex offenders to live anywhere in town.
Assemblyman Wayne DeAngelo, D-Hamilton, and Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Plainsboro, are sponsors of the bill.
"The law's silence on pedophile-free zones is a legal void that the Legislature now must fill," said DeAngelo in a release. He was on the Hamilton Township Council when it enacted the residency ordinance in 2005.
DeAngelo said pedophiles have "a sickness not proven to be curable," and he believes residency limits are another measure to protect youngsters. ..News Source.. by CARMEN CUSIDO and RYAN TRACY
March 13, 2009
CA- WILDOMAR: City to have its own sex offender law
A ordinance to cover 19 former offenders and no mention of backdating to exclude them. Another interesting point, it appears lawyers of different towns disagree on what is constitutional. Then to show the stupidity of this type of ordinance, kids are more likely to gather at someone's home say for a birthday party, than they are to in parks. So if the focus is -where kids gather- notice the large hole in lawmakers' logic. Then consider malls, movies, roller rinks, etc etc etc...
3-13-2009 California:
Enforcement to be delayed until legal issues resolved
WILDOMAR ---- As other cities have done, Wildomar will enact restrictions in Jessica's Law on where registered sex offenders can live ---- but with a catch, City Council members decided this week.
There will be no enforcement until the state Supreme Court irons out some legal issues. That way the city can avoid lawsuits, while ensuring the restrictions are in place if and when they are enforceable, City Attorney Julie Biggs advised.
The council members voted unanimously Wednesday to have the city attorney on March 25 bring back an ordinance that will establish "predator-free zones" where registered sex offenders would be prohibited from living. The law aims to keep offenders away from places such as schools and parks where children gather.
The ordinance will require initial and final approval by the council, after which it would become effective in 30 days.
The state Department of Justice's Web site lists 19 registered sex offenders in the 92595 ZIP code, which encompasses most of Wildomar.
"I think it sends a message to sex offenders that are in Wildomar and it's on our books," Mayor Scott Farnam said of the ordinance. "It won't be enforced yet, but it lets them know we are moving forward with a tougher law."
Councilwoman Bridgette Moore said she brought the idea of a Jessica's Law ordinance to the city attorney after she was told about it by members of the county's Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Team during a presentation at City Hall.
"I have a young son, so I really want Wildomar to be as safe as it can be," she said.
Biggs recommended the city go ahead with the law, but not enforce it until the Supreme Court rules on a case challenging Jessica's Law, a proposition approved by the state's voters in 2006. The law toughens penalties on some sex offenders, requires sentenced offenders to wear Global Positioning Systems, and allows sex offenders to be indefinitely committed to state mental institutions.
The measure also authorizes cities and counties to ban registered offenders from moving into homes within 2,000 feet of schools and parks, but allows the government agencies to adopt even tighter restrictions.
Biggs said government agencies have to enact an ordinance for the provisions of Jessica's Law to apply in their jurisdictions.
While Temecula and Murrieta have already adopted more restrictive ordinances, Biggs recommended against Wildomar using them as models.
She had concerns about both of the ordinances and cited, as one example, a provision in the Murrieta ordinance related to loitering that she said appeared to be too broad.
Meanwhile, according to Biggs, the case before the Supreme Court challenges the residency restrictions as "cruel and unusual punishment" and the application of the measure to those whose offenses don't involve children.
She said she expects the predator-free zones in Wildomar's ordinance to adhere to the 2,000-foot radius from schools and parks.
By going forward with it now, the ordinance will apply on the date it is enacted to offenders sentenced from that date into the future, Councilwoman Sheryl Ade said.
"For the people in the community, it makes them feel safe," Ade said. "I'm not sure I subscribe to that (idea children are safer). There's been some challenges to the law and where ultimately we're going to put these (offenders). But it's something people in the community feel strongly about." ..News Source.. by MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS - Staff Writer
November 28, 2008
RI- Debate continues over state’s new sex-offender bill
11-28-2008 Rhode Island:
Late in June, in the waning hours of the General Assembly’s 2008 session, a law passed making it a felony for any registered sex offender to live within 300 feet of a Rhode Island school.
The three-paragraph law dropped Rhode Island squarely into the middle of a heated national debate over the treatment of sex offenders who have served their prison sentences.
For the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Hannah Gallo, D-Cranston, and supporters of the measure, the new law is a common-sense response to citizens’ repeated concerns over registered sex offenders who end up living near elementary schools, playgrounds, bus stops and other places children congregate.
“To me,” Gallo said, “it just doesn’t make sense as to why we would let sex offenders live near a school where they can stare out the window at children and perhaps (absolute proof there has never been such a case) go out and prey” on them.
-Nowhere in the nation has there been a case of a RSO -living within xx feet of a school- that has preyed on a child walking to school. Whenever a child walking to school has been accosted, it has been by someone driving or walking near the school, and when such offenders have been caught, it has never been a registered sex offender living within xx feet of the school. This residency premise is a congered up myth with no basis in fact or prior act.
Opponents say that all the new law accomplishes is to make Rhode Island the latest state to try to slap a one-size-fits-all solution on a complex problem, and that there is no data to support the theory that restricting where sex offenders live helps to keep them from repeating their crimes.
“The law is ill-conceived and incredibly vague,” Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, said. “Quite simply, it’s a bad idea.”
He points out that in 2006, four years after Iowa became one of the first states to implement restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live, its statewide association of county prosecutors spoke out publicly against the law.
“The Iowa County Attorneys Association believes that the 2,000-foot residency restriction for persons who have been convicted of sex offenses involving minors does not provide the protection that was originally intended,” the association said in a statement.
THE IDEA for Rhode Island law, Gallo said, came from her constituents concerned about sex offenders in the community. One of the most recent examples, she said, was a case last year in which a registered sex offender moved in less than a block from Cranston’s Glen Hills Elementary School, and there was little that could be done to assuage parents’ worries.
There are about 1,550 registered sex offenders in the state, according to the attorney general’s office, which works with state Department of Corrections as it follows sex offenders after their release. Paula A. Kocon, a special-project coordinator for the Department of Corrections’ Sex Offender and Community Notification Unit, said the state uses a three-tier ranking system to indicate an offender’s likelihood of repeating his or her crime. Level 1 is considered the least likely and Level 3 is considered the most likely.
Kocon was at the Warwick police station Monday night as officials tried to answer worried parents’ questions about Level 3 sex offender Leo Nadeau’s recent move to the Craig Street area, less than a half-mile from the complex with Toll Gate High School and Winman Junior High. Parents were notified of Nadeau’s arrival in the area in accordance with state laws that allow a public notification process for Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders.
Parents repeatedly expressed a fierce desire to protect their children from harm and said it didn’t seem fair that their sense of safety in their own neighborhood had to be sacrificed for one individual. They noted that Nadeau’s house was across the street from a playground basketball court, which has led many of them to keep their children away from that park.
“So our lives are disrupted,” one man shouted out from the back of the room.
COL. STEPHEN P. McCARTNEY, the Warwick police chief, said the department has had many such meetings, and he understood residents’ fears.
“The problem is that it is a very complicated and complex issue,” said McCartney, who is also president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association. “The first thing you have to keep in mind is that we are talking about people who have finished their incarceration and, in a sense, paid their debt to society.
“At the same time, we have to understand that from a psychological point of view, parents are very concerned and want to control the environment to make it safe for their children, so they put a lot of pressure on their legislators. Then a law gets passed, and it’s our job to enforce it.”
In the neighboring city of Cranston, Col. Stephen McGrath says he supports the intent of the new law, but sees some problems with enforcement since it is not specific as to what boundaries are to be used in determining the 300 feet and what exactly defines a school. He also said that he shared the view of some national studies that say residency restrictions can give citizens a false sense of security.
“People have to remember that these offenders can drive and are free to travel about,” he said. “There is not a law that prohibits them from visiting someone who lives near a school and staying there for a matter of hours. Obviously, we want to strengthen laws that protect people, but some of the logistics of actually enforcing them can be problematic.”
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S office also responded cautiously to the new law.
“We are aware that there may be problems with this law, and we are also aware of the argument against such laws, which is based on studies that show that in at least 9 out of 10 cases of child molestation, the victim knows their attacker well through either family or friends,” Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general’s office said. “But Senator Gallo is trying to address an issue that is a matter of public safety and much concern, and she deserves a lot of credit for that.”
Brown said his office has not ruled out a court challenge to the law. With a little over 20 states having such laws, there have been several such challenges across the country, he said, with varying results.
“Among other things, this law does not differentiate between Level 1 and Level 3 offenders,” Brown said. “And it also has no expiration, so conceivably people could be limited as to where they live for the rest of their lives.
“It absolutely gives the public a false sense of security because the statistics are abundantly clear that more than 90 percent of child molestation crimes are committed by family and friends of the victim.”
GALLO SAID SHE was aware of reports that challenge the effective of residence restrictions, but she, along with many fellow legislators, still thought that buffer zones were a good idea.
State Rep. Peter G. Palumbo, D-Cranston, co-chairman of a House committee on sexual offenders, said he supported such restrictions because even if the minority of cases involved strangers, there were still horrifying occurrences such as the nationally chronicled New Jersey case of 7-year-old Meagan Kanka, who was molested and murdered by a convicted sex offender who lived near her.
“These guys, for whatever reason, have some sick, twisted monster in them,” Palumbo said, “and if we let them live near our schools, they’ll be sitting there looking at the kids, and it will be tempting for them.”
Said Gallo: “Children are basically trusting, and when they’re walking to school, they’re more likely to be more receptive to someone who lives in their neighborhood who approaches them rather than a complete stranger.
“I think parents have the right to know that their children can walk to school safely. They should not have to live in fear of their neighbors.” ..News Source.. by Barbara Polichetti, Journal Staff Writer
November 25, 2008
OH- Restrictions on residency don't really help kids
What do "residency laws" ignore that makes them further punishment? The premise: "where children are likely to congregate," these laws ignore WITH/WITHOUT SUPERVISION, and other factors as well? If residency laws were limited to places where children congregate WITHOUT SUPERVISION, then they may make some sense. Without such they are a play on words, wordsmithing, to permit further punishment for registrants.
11-25-2008 Ohio:
Sex-offender registration is not a complex idea.
Society has a right to keep tabs on people who have proven themselves capable of harming another person sexually. Children especially need to be protected.
-Even this premise is a joke because children have been harmed, in more circumstances and ways by non sex offenders than by sex offenders, and those offenders are ignored under registration and residency laws.
However, when Ohio joined dozens of other states in restricting where registered sex offenders could live, it did little to protect children.
Overwhelmingly, studies have shown that registered sex offenders are convicted of assaults on people they know. Assaults on strangers do occur, but they are not the main problem.
Ohio already prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a place where children are likely to gather – schools, parks or day care facilities.
The issue now in Ohio is whether registered sex offenders who committed their crimes before 1993 — or who lived at their current address before then — should be forced to move.
The question should not be about where they live, but should be about behavior – what do they do?
Our legal system is predicated on punishment and rehabilitation.
Registered sex offenders who have served their punishments and not had any repeat incidents should be allowed to remain in their homes. If they re-offend, they are unfortunately likely to do it with someone they already know. Where they live does not matter.
One of the effects of rules like these is that it would tend to force registered sex offenders into rural areas. It they cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care facility, they have little option in some communities.
Many home owners would likely say — good riddance! But the issue should be their behavior — if they are not committing crimes, they should be allowed to remain where they are.
Forced removals are not American. We do not banish our citizens. If a crime is committed, the person is caught, convicted and punished. Once that punishment is served, it is presumed that they want to get on with their lives.
This is how it should be.
Sexual assaults are heinous crimes and sexual abuse of children deserves harsh punishment.
Ohio should not expand its residency limitations for sex offenders, a law that is unlikely to do much to protect children. ..News Source.. Opinion of: Sprinfield News-Sun
October 26, 2008
PA- Residency restrictions for sex offenders popular, but ineffective
Excellent commentary on the foolishness of residency laws, and provides evidence that lawmakers only passed them because the public wanted them without any foundation but a whim. Worth a read.
10-26-2008 Pennsylvania:
Despite research that shows sex offender residency requirements actually hamper the rehabilitation of offenders, jurisdictions across the country continue to pass them, including Allegheny County last year.
Experts say the laws, which prohibit convicted sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, day care centers and parks, also don't work to help cut down on recidivism.
These types of residency restrictions have been passed in at least 30 states and thousands of municipalities nationwide. Even as prosecutors, criminal justice researchers and child advocates say they don't work, parents and legislators continue to push for the tough laws.
County Councilman Vince Gastgeb, R-Bethel Park, who was the primary author of the local bill passed in October 2007, said he wrote the law that parents wanted.
Mr. Gastgeb said he originally intended for the restrictions to apply only to offenders whose victims were children. But after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against the county this month, Mr. Gastgeb learned that the law actually applies to all registered sex offenders, no matter their victims' ages.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of six sex offenders who said they could not find anywhere to live because of the restrictions.
At the time the suit was filed, Mr. Gastgeb said he would amend the law so that it applied only to sex offenders whose victims are children.
But days later, he changed his mind.
"I do think it's legally sound, and I do think we'll prevail in court," Mr. Gastgeb said. "So a certain section of the county is off-limits. That's the way it is.
"There's plenty of places for people to live."
Even if there are "plenty of places for people to live," those who have studied the issue know that residency restrictions push sex offenders outside of metropolitan areas into rural communities.
That means less access to family, housing, employment and treatment programs, said Dr. Jill S. Levenson, a professor at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., who has been studying sex crime policy for six years.
"At first glance, these laws sound good in theory," she said. "But it's much more complex than that."
The visceral reaction of "not in my neighborhood," needs to be balanced with pragmatism, she said.
Part of the problem, she continued, is that residency restrictions are often one-size-fits-all.
They often don't distinguish among the types of crimes that have been committed, Dr. Levenson said. Just because someone is designated a sex offender under state law does not necessarily mean that that person is a sexually violent predator or a pedophile.
Further, studies conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Colorado Department of Public Safety have not shown any correlation between sex offender recidivism and living near schools or parks.
And though residency restrictions might prohibit a sex offender from living in a certain neighborhood, they can't keep such a person from sitting across the street from a playground.
"They really do nothing at all to stop sex offenders from having access to children during the day," Dr. Levenson said.
On the other hand, there is ample scientific evidence that shows residency laws do interfere with the reintegration of sex offenders into society.
"Criminal offenders who have stable housing, stable employment and support systems in their lives, those people are less likely to go on and commit new crimes," Dr. Levenson said.
Sex offender residency restrictions were approved in Iowa in 2002, though the law was put on hold pending the outcome of a court case. In 2005, the state Supreme Court upheld the law there.
Law enforcement opposition
Almost from inception, law enforcement entities have been fighting to get it repealed, said Corwin Ritchie, the executive director of the Iowa County Attorneys Association.
The prosecutors' group issued a policy statement on the issue, outlining what it sees as numerous problems.
In addition, residency restrictions have made it less likely for people charged with sex offenses to plead guilty, for fear that they will lose their homes.
That means that more cases must go to trial -- potentially causing additional trauma for victims -- or more offenders go free because sex crimes can be hard to prove.
Another important factor to be considered, Mr. Ritchie said, is the vast amount of resources being spent to enforce residency laws with few tangible results.
In Iowa, according to his organization, the state has lost track of more than half of its registered sex offenders since restrictions went into place, making the jobs of probation and parole officers much more difficult and time-consuming.
Also, Department of Justice research shows that at least 90 percent of children who are abused are victimized by someone they know and trust.
"[The incidence of] stranger danger is tiny," Mr. Ritchie said. "It's tragic, but its incidence is really, really small."
And despite public opinions to the contrary, research shows that sex offenders are among the least likely criminals to re-offend, Dr. Levenson said.
But in Iowa, legislators don't want to hear any of that, Mr. Ritchie said.
"We ran into the politics of it," he continued. "No one wants to be seen as soft on sex offenders.
"It's just politically untenable."
Soon after Iowa's law went into effect, a small panel of legislators who wrote it told Mr. Ritchie that they were wrong and that it should be overturned, he said.
But those same lawmakers said they would not be the ones to do it, he said. Instead, they left it up to the courts.
"They're a fearful bunch," he said. "They've done such a good job of selling it, they can't turn and go the other way."
Advocates for repealing Iowa's law came close two sessions ago, Mr. Ritchie said. They will take up the fight again in 2009.
"The general public doesn't really care if it's good public policy," Mr. Ritchie said.
Parents insistent
The decision by Mr. Gastgeb to write the local law was influenced by listening to many parents in Mt. Lebanon speak at community meetings.
They were outraged last year to learn that a convicted sex offender was living near Howe Elementary School in the Sunset Hills neighborhood.
Last week, parents there continued to support the residency restriction law.
"It would be very difficult to have a whole lot of sympathy for sex offenders at all, having three children," said Kathy Graziano, who lives in the community.
One of the reasons she feels so strongly about the restriction is that the Mt. Lebanon School District does not have a busing system. Many students walk to and from school, she said, which makes them more vulnerable.
"There were children passing his residence at any time of the day," Ms. Graziano said. "We don't have buses . . . or designated adults that would be one more set of eyes."
She doesn't care if local sex offenders have access to housing or jobs.
"Then I suppose they should work out in a cornfield in the middle of Iowa," she said.
Another neighbor, Bill Crock, who has four children, believes the residency restriction should stick.
"From what I've read, these guys don't get better," he said. "It's a lifelong problem."
A teacher, who also lives in the community, was the only one to express mixed feelings on the issue.
She wouldn't give her name for fear of reprisal from her school district, but the woman said she felt sorry for the offenders.
Though the most important thing is to protect children, she also added that sex offenders do have to live somewhere.
That's a notion that Dr. Levenson backed up.
"When sex offenders become homeless, they do become more difficult for probation and parole to track," she said. "That, in itself, defeats the very purpose of Megan's Law."
Though most jurisdictions pass residency restrictions when they are introduced, the Kansas legislature in 2006 chose not to after listening to expert testimony during two days of hearings.
"This is not about sympathy for criminal offenders," Dr. Levenson said. "Housing instability is one of the strongest indicators of recidivism in the criminal justice literature."
If jurisdictions want to enforce some residency restrictions, Dr. Levenson suggests that it be done only after an evaluation is performed to assess the person's potential for future danger.
Parents should not rely simply on sex offender registries to keep their children safe, she said.
"With the reliance on sex offender registries, we do parents a disservice," she said. "They need to be aware of what to look for in anyone who spends time with their child." ..News Source.. by Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
