N.J. bill restricting where sex offenders live wouldn't help kids

1-5-2012 New Jersey:

The basic premise is inarguable: Who doesn’t want to protect children from sex offenders? Yet in the name of doing so, lawmakers have proposed feel-good legislation that’s more likely to do the exact opposite.

This bill, expected to be heard in the Assembly today, would allow municipalities to forbid sex offenders from living within 500 feet of a school, playground or day care center. Its sponsors, including Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-Camden), insist it will help sex offenders avoid temptation. As she puts it, “If you’re going on a diet, you wouldn’t want to see chocolate in front of you all the time.”

But would moving somebody 500 feet away from a supermarket make them any less obese? Not likely.

Think about the practical impact of the bill. Right now, nearly half of all sex offenders are concentrated in cities, where there is a school, playground or day care center on nearly every corner. So the effect of this bill would be to uproot massive numbers of sex offenders, forcing them to move to the suburbs, or go into hiding.

Their relationships with parole officers, family members and any other support network would be disrupted. And experts say that would make them even more dangerous. That’s why victim advocates, such as the National Alliance To End Sexual Violence, oppose residency restrictions.

In Iowa, since the state imposed residency restriction laws in 2005, the number of sex offenders who are unaccounted for has doubled. “We’re lucky if we know where 50 to 55 percent of them are now,” said Don Zeller, sheriff of Linn County.

In Miami, a homeless tent city under a bridge overflowed after the city enacted restrictive residency laws for sex offenders. That is no way to improve public safety.

Nobody wants their kid anywhere near a sex offender, of course. But the vast majority of sex offenders were not strangers; they chose victims they already knew. To protect kids, we have to watch them, educate them and communicate with them.

Tightening the circle around sex offenders gives us the illusion of safety. But in reality, it would leave our children less safe. ..Source.. by Star-Ledger Editorial Board

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender’s attorney argues ordinance

8-30-2011 New York:

NORTH TONAWANDA — An attorney representing a convicted sex offender who is suing the City of North Tonawanda and Niagara County to challenge an ordinance barring him from living within 1,320 feet of a school, playground or daycare center said the law is overly severe.

Kathy Manley, of Kindlon Shanks and Associates in Albany, said the ordinance exceeds the state residency restriction of 1,000 feet.

“It would be nice if the state enforced this, but that’s really not how it works,” she said. “This is about the fact that localities, counties and towns are not able to regulate sex offenders. It’s something that the state has to regulate because otherwise you have every town and county making harsher and harsher laws. It pushes them underground.”

Manley said she has overturned similar ordinances in Albany, Rensselaer and Washington counties, with one more pending in Saratoga County. She argues laws that overstep state restrictions simply push sex offenders from one locale to another, which can allow for them to go into hiding.

“It is possible, that’s what happened in Iowa,” she said. “They put away more people than they really needed to monitor. It basically banished people from the whole state. They ended up changing the law. It was way too harsh.”

Manley’s client, Dale L. Goff, is due to be released in January. He has been imprisoned on his most recent charge at the Gowanda Correctional Facility since November 2006. Goff also was convicted in 1992 of molesting two boys, ages six and 10.

“He’ll be monitored, registered and required to report every 90 days,” she said.

Manley said she could not get into specifics regarding where exactly Goff would like to live, though she did believe it would be with a relative.

“I don’t know if he could find anything else,” she said. “There’s somebody there he would have been approved to live with. This comes down to not wanting people to lose all their rights.”

Manley also challenges claims by North Tonawanda attorney Shawn Nickerson, who said sex offenders have a high rate of recidivism.

“There’s actually much lower rates for most sex offenders than for the average criminal,” she said. “I feel like if we start allowing some groups of people to lose their rights, others will follow. We’re protecting everybody’s rights.”

It will likely be several months before the lawsuit is brought to court, Manley said. ..Source.. by Mike Regan Niagara Gazette

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

How far can - or should - communities go to restrict sex offenders?

3-2-2011 New York

How can communities most effectively - and legally - protect themselves from convicted sex offenders? What kind of restrictions should be placed on the day-to-day lives of those deemed most at risk of re-offending? What role should local governments play in shaping those measures?

A recent state Supreme Court decision asserts that state regulations supercede local measures when it comes to regulating where convicted sex offenders can live. New York state has myriad laws regarding sex offenders, from Meagan's Law, which requires convicted sex offenders to notify law enforcement when they move into a community, to newly enacted guidelines and procedures concerning where the most dangerous sex offenders can live.

The Jan. 23 ruling by state Supreme Court Justice William Kelly invalidated Rockland's Pedophile Free Child Safety Zone Act, enacted in 2007. The local law has been the subject of several legal challenges, as have some of the 80-plus similar laws that have been adopted from Niagara Falls to Long Island. Such sex offender zones usually target those classified as Level 2 and Level 3 offenders. Level 2 designates a moderate risk of re-offending; Level 3 refers to those deemed at high risk of committing another crime.

Kelly's ruling in New City dismissed a probation violation against Yoel Oberlander for moving to a residence within 1,000 feet of a "Rockland County pedophile-free child safety zone," which included schools, child-care facilities, park playgrounds, youth centers and public swimming pools. Because the judge has ruled that the local law is pre-empted by state law, the county attorney has said that an appeal is unlikely, according to a county spokeswoman.

The court decision has implications beyond Oberlander's probation or even Rockland's safety zone law. Similar laws, including one in Putnam County, which recently updated its child zone law, ostensibly to avoid legal challenges, could also be in jeopardy. Westchester also has been considering child safety zone legislation. A New Jersey court last year struck down local safety zones, citing their interference with parole and probation officers' efforts to find suitable housing for offenders.

'Not in my backyard'
Judge Kelly expressed concern about "not in my backyard" residency requirements creating a hodge-podge of restrictions throughout New York. "Sex offender residency restrictions are multiplying throughout New York State, as local legislatures scramble to outmaneuver each other with highly restrictive ordinances designed to banish registered offenders from their community," Kelly wrote.

Indeed, that's what happened after the Rockland County Department of Social Services arranged for another Level 3 sex offender, Christopher Palma, to be housed in Ulster County. Palma had been admitted to the county's Summit Park hospital for two weeks, but when it was time for him to be discharged, Palma said he couldn't find housing that complied with the county's child zone law. He ended up staying at the county-owned facility for 19 months; under state law, he couldn't be discharged without a place to go. After Palma's relocation to Ulster was revealed in the local media, Ulster officials protested, and now that county is considering similar residency regulations for sex offenders.

When Rockland's child safety zone law was passed by the county Legislature and signed by County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef, its limitations were duly noted. Some said it offered a false sense of security. The prime sponsor, Legislator Ed Day, R-New City, said it should not be seen as a total security blanket for children; it's just another tool for law enforcement. Vanderhoef has repeatedly said that the state must establish standards for housing sex offenders. Gov. David Paterson, when signing the recent updates to state law, directed state social service, parole and probation officials to address "a coordinated and comprehensive statewide policy that will both protect the public and ensure that there is suitable and appropriate housing available for sex offenders in every community in the State."

Rockland probation officers have complained that the child zone law has left few places in Rockland for sex offenders to reside, making it more difficult to monitor dangerous people. Day, a retired high-ranking NYPD officer, dismisses those complaints; he notes that other sex offenders have found places to live in Rockland, notwithstanding the restrictions.

Another take on offenders

Human Rights Watch U.S. researcher Sarah Tofte, based in Manhattan, examined residency restrictions in a 2007 report, "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." No evidence could be found to show child safety laws diminished crimes against children, her research found. The organization monitors and defends human right issues around the world.

"For registered offenders, the main impact of the laws may be simply to drive them underground or to uproot them from their families and communities," the report states. Family support, counseling and employment are seen by many in the criminal justice community as strong motivators against recidivism. Her report concluded that, "Residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders should be determined on a case-by-case basis, for example by courts or probation and parole officers, and be subject to periodic review."

Paterson, in a memorandum on the state law last year, underscored the challenge of finding appropriate housing for offenders, a burden that falls on local probation and social services officials. Some probation and social service officials have said that by making it so difficult for them to find housing, sex offenders can slip into homelessness, which creates barriers to tracking their comings and goings - a dangerous proposition.

New York has tough laws

Kelly noted in his ruling that a 2005 state law barred sex offenders whose victims were minors and who were under parole and probation supervision from residing within 1,000 feet of schools. "In fact, New York has one of the strictest sex offender residency law(s) in the nation," Kelly wrote. As well, New York's Megan's Law shows the state's intention to manage the sex offender issues, according to Kelly's ruling. The state's newest sex offender regulations, which went into effect this month, mandate that local probation departments take responsibility for approving housing for sex offenders, Kelly notes. As Paterson wrote in his signing memorandum: "This bill recognizes that the placement of these offenders in the community has been and will continue to be a matter that is properly addressed by the State."

State regulations acknowledge a need for buffer zones, but demonstrate a long-term goal of reintegrating offenders into the community, Kelly stated. "Local residency laws don't," he said. "They permanently exclude offenders from communities, setting off a chain-reaction of fear-driven and increasingly restrictive laws."

Where does all this leave safety-conscious local communities? Still searching for answers as to how they can keep children safe - within the boundaries of the law. ..Source.. Nancy Cutler

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Plymouth committee says no reason for local sexual offender regulation

2-23-2011 Massachusetts:

They find no evidence of connection between recidivism and residency


PLYMOUTH — A special committee made up of Town Meeting Precinct Chairs has come out against local sex offender regulations with special residency or loitering restrictions.

The committee's report - delivered to the Board of Selectman Tuesday night - was prompted by a 2009 town meeting article that argued that without such a regulation Plymouth could become a refuge for sex offenders, and that playgrounds, school yards, and other facilities needed extra protection from predators.

The committee "took no initial position" their final report noted, but sought objective information from as many credible sources as possible.

They reviewed the available literature, consulted Plymouth Police Chief Michael Botieri,and interviewed a number of experts and concluded that the regulation, as written, would offer residences no additional protection and risk a variety of "constitutional complications."

They further concluded that Plymouth was not the kind of community that offenders would find attractive, that the idea that convicted offenders would be likely to reoffend was based on "myths" about sex offenders, and that - with only a handful of communities adopting local sex offender regulations (and none of which abutted Plymouth) the town was not at all likely to be the preferred destination of sex offenders fleeing those communities.

The eight-member committee unanimously voted against reccomending a sex offender bylaw with either a residency or a loitering restriction.

For more information on the proposed regulation, and the findings of the committee, look to an upcoming issue of the Old Colony Memorial. ..Source.. by Frank Mand

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bangor rejects sex offender residency restrictions

12-14-2010 Maine:

BANGOR, Maine (NEWS CENTER) -- The Bangor City Council has turned down the possibility of amending the city code to include sex offender residency restrictions.

The council voted 8-1 against the amendment that would have limited sex offenders from living with 750 of any school, playground, or parks primarily used by children, making roughly one-third of the city off limits to sex offenders. Susan Hawes, Chair of the City Council, said this alone wouldn't make children in Bangor safe.

"The basic was reason was that people felt that it didn't bring a safer city to the children," Hawes said. "And it was such a small population we'd be dealing with." ..Source.. WLBZ2.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex-offender registries' effectiveness not clear

11-15-2010 Ohio:

DAYTON - On July 29, 1994, in a suburb of Trenton, N.J., a twice-convicted pedophile named Jesse Timmendequas lured a neighbor, 7-year-old Megan Nicole Kanka, into his home on the pretext of letting her see his new puppy. He raped her, killed her and dumped her body in a nearby park.

Public outrage about the murder led New Jersey to enact the first Megan's Law, requiring registration of sex offenders and public notification of their residences. Related federal, state and municipal laws and resolutions were quick to follow, restricting where registered sex offenders can live and establishing registration rules and classifications of offenders based on their threat of re-offending.

In southwestern Ohio's Warren County, a proposal considered by the Lebanon City Council would ban sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet not only of schools and day-care centers, but also of parks, playgrounds and libraries.

Similar restrictions have been enacted in Upper Arlington and other Ohio communities, including Deerfield Township in Warren County and Anderson and Sycamore townships near Cincinnati.

But even the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children cautions that Megan's Laws are no panacea. "Such laws are just a tool among a long list of tools," said President Ernie Allen. "Simply having a residency ordinance should not be viewed as, 'Hallelujah, we're safe.'"

Some research shows that registration and residency restrictions are having no demonstrable impact on public safety. Some say they might actually feed recidivism.

"Our experience suggests the get-tough-on-crime-and-criminals kind of ordinances do little but waste taxpayer money and give people a false sense of security," said James Hardiman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

California enacted the first sex-offender registry law in the 1940s, but the idea didn't hit its stride until enactment of the 1994 federal Jacob Wetterling Act, which required states to create sex-offender registries. It was amended in 1996 with Megan's Law, which required that registry information be shared with the public.

Ohio's Megan's Law was implemented in 1997, creating a three-tier system for registration based on an offender's likelihood to commit new crimes, as determined by actuarial information about the offenders and their offenses. Last year, Ohio became the first state to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act, which requires classification based on the crime an offender committed, rather than an actuarial risk assessment.

A study published in the January 2010 issue of the Sex Offender Law Report found that by classifying offenders by their crimes, the percentage of offenders in the high-risk category would jump from 55 to 87 percent. That adds to demands on law enforcement, researchers said, and could prompt more offenders not to register.

Registry laws assume that sex offenders are likely to commit new crimes and must be monitored even after they've served prison time and fulfilled parole requirements. Offenders who are released from prison must register their addresses for at least 10 years, and in many cases for the rest of their lives.

The Justice Department reported in 2003 that sex offenders released from prison were four times more likely than other ex-convicts to be rearrested for a sex crime within 10years, although sex offenders were less likely (43 percent) than other ex-convicts (68 percent) to be rearrested for any crime.

Sex offenders seem "hard-wired" to re-offend, said U.S. District Judge Walter Herbert Rice in Dayton. In the worst cases, "you're talking about people who are going to offend - I don't care if Batman and Robin are hovering over them," Rice said. "I don't think registration law changes behavior any more than the death penalty deters murderers. (But) they accomplish two things: They accomplish perhaps a false sense of security, and they provide law enforcement with a pretty good idea of who's in the community."

But Rice doesn't favor laws such as the one proposed for Lebanon. "I would say such a proposed ordinance, if not unconstitutional, would be almost impossible to enforce and at the same time provide these ex-offenders some place to live and work. I fully understand the public's need to be protected. (But) the law paints with too broad a brush sometimes."

Rice said low-level offenders who pose little threat are often lumped in with sexual predators.

Sex offenses have declined since Megan's Law, but so have all violent crimes - and the numbers were dropping long before Megan's Law.

Researchers in the New Jersey Department of Corrections who studied the original Megan's Law couldn't prove it was effective and said they were "hard-pressed to determine that the escalating costs are justifiable."

That hasn't stopped states and communities from enacting ever-tougher residency restrictions. Some experts are concerned that communities and states are making it nearly impossible for ex-offenders to rehabilitate themselves.

Upper Arlington adopted an ordinance in 2007 that bans sex offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of schools, day-care centers, libraries and parks. A map shows that most of the city is off limits to offenders, and only three offenders live in the city.

Tom Hagel, a University of Dayton law professor, said it's "highly debatable" that registry laws protect children. They do, however, prevent ex-offenders from having the access to homes and jobs that help them be productive citizens.

"If they can't find a place to live, if they can't find a place to work, somebody's going to have to pay the price for their existence," he said. "You have cast them out of society, effectively." ..Source.. by Tom Beyerlein, DAYTON DAILY NEWS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Further restrictions of sex offenders debated

Here is someone who is clueless about the harm caused former offenders by residency laws. Can some local folks get to the meeting to make this guy aware of the harm?

11-11-2010 Ohio:

LEBANON — Debate continues over a proposed new ordinance to further limit where sex offenders can live inside city limits.

The ordinance, proposed by Councilman Matt Rodriguez, would prohibit registered sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of city parks, playgrounds and libraries. Sex offenders are already restricted by state law from living within 1,000 feet of schools and day care centers.

While no member of council supports sex offenders, debate rages within the council over whether this proposed ordinance will be enforceable, effective or possibly even a negative to the community.

“The legislation is a way to let the city know we have a problem,” said Rodriguez. “And to let sex offenders know they are not welcome in our community.”

There are 203 sex offenders registered in Warren County — 35 live in Lebanon.

Mayor Amy Brewer has come out in opposition to the law, saying it will corral sex offenders into living in select pocket neighborhoods. The corralling, she argued, could deteriorate property values in those areas.

Vice Mayor Jeff Monroe, who earned a doctorate in criminal justice, said that studies on Megan’s Law show the law hasn’t had much effect but that the measure has no negative effects either.

“There is no added harm from the law to either the community or people labeled as sex offenders,” said Monroe, who said he’d support the measure. “The law does cause the community to open its eyes about who is living there.”

Councilman Gary Heitkamp said he had also studied the law and found it added no additional protection.

“I worry that we are going to imply extra safety that doesn’t exist,” Heitkamp said.

The ordinance is based off an identical measure passed by Deerfield Twp. in September 2008. Township Trustee Chris Romano spearheaded the law’s passage because of concerns he held for the safety of his children.

“It’s sort of an anti-creep law,” Romano said. “If you live across the street from a school, your neighbor ought not to be a sex offender.”

The ordinance is scheduled for a vote at council’s Nov. 23 meeting. ..Source.. by Justin McClelland, Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

C.A. Reaffirms Ruling Requiring Jury Findings to Impose Sex Offender Registration Requirement

9-30-2010 California:

The Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday reaffirmed its ruling that an order requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender subject to Jessica’s Law’s restriction on residency within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children gather must be based on facts found by a jury.

The California Supreme Court had ordered Div. Three to reconsider the 2008 decision in light of the high court’s opinion earlier this year that the restriction was not additional punishment when imposed on parolees already registered as sex offenders.

Steven Lloyd Mosley challenged an Orange Superior Court judge’s order that he register as a sex offender after a jury convicted Mosley of assaulting a 12-year-old girl in the carport of an Anaheim apartment, but acquitted him of committing a lewd act on the minor. Judge David A. Hoffer based the ruling on factual findings he made about Mosley’s motivations for the 2003 assault.

California’s sex offender registration laws grant a judge discretion to order sex offender registration for “any offense” if the judge finds that the offense was “committed as a result of sexual compulsion or for purposes of sexual gratification.” Mosley appealed Hoffer’s order, arguing that those findings needed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, and Div. Three initially agreed in an opinion by Justice Raymond J. Ikola.

Joined by Justices Kathleen O’Leary and Eileen C. Moore, Ikola wrote that sex offender registration, by itself, was merely “regulatory” and “remedial.” But he reasoned that voters’ 2006 approval of Jessica’s Law, which imposed a residency requirement potentially banishing registered sex offenders from whole neighborhoods or cities, increased the punitive effect of registration beyond the statutory maximum penalty, effectively constituting punishment.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 that a defendant has the right to a jury trial on any facts—other than a prior conviction—that increase the penalty for a conviction beyond the statutory maximum. The high court relied on that rationale to strike down mandatory federal guidelines for sentencing in 2005 and a feature of California’s Determinate Sentencing Law in 2007.

The California Supreme Court directed Ikola and his panel to reconsider in light of the state high court’s opinion in In re E.J. (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1258. Reviewing the imposition of the residency restriction as a parole condition, the justices there held that the restriction applied prospectively to four registered sex offenders paroled after passage of Jessica’s Law.

But the court in E.J. did not address the 2,000-foot residency limit’s application to registered sex offenders not already on parole, leaving unanswered whether the restriction constituted increased punishment for an offense when a trial court imposed discretionary registration as part of a sentence.

Focusing on that question, O’Leary wrote on behalf of the appellate panel that the restriction was punishment due to its effect, and she ordered the sex offender registration requirement stricken from the judgment against Mosley.

“We leave the substance of the sex offender registration scheme untouched,” she said. “Courts may impose discretionary sex offender registration; registered sex offenders may be subject to the residency restriction. We hold only that imposing the residency restriction through discretionary sex offender registration as part of the sentencing on the underlying offense increases the penalty for that offense beyond the statutory maximum. Accordingly, the facts supporting the imposition of the registration requirement must be found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Ikola and Moore joined O’Leary in her opinion.

The case is People v. Mosley, 10 S.O.S. 5606. ..Source.. STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Rules keep sex offenders guessing

What is a joke here is, that, the lawmakers believes that, banning RSOs from parks is a form of monitoring them. One thing lawmakers are great at is, perverting the English language and spinning the public. Obviously, stopping RSOs from living in an area DOES NOT stop them from walking into or being in those areas, even then if someone wants to commit a crime, laws will not stop them.

9-15-2010 Indiana:

Lafayette resident Allana Diaz is comforted knowing that no child predators are living nearby when she takes her boys, ages 4 and 7, to play at city-run Murdock Park.

Since July 1, 2006, in Indiana, sex offenders against children have been banned from residing within 1,000 feet of public parks, schools and youth program centers.
"You worry that someone is going to snatch them when you look away for five, 10 seconds. So, yes, I think it's a great law," said Diaz, who was at Murdock with her sons Thursday afternoon.

Protecting children from harm was at the forefront for Hoosier lawmakers when they passed the residency restrictions. That also was the motivation behind Indiana's Sex and Violent Offender Registry, a public database that since 2003 tracks those criminals' home and work addresses and posts them online.

However, the effectiveness of such legal tools is debatable, and shifting interpretations of the laws keep offenders and officials on their toes.
One reason is that some of the statutory language is vague, leaving each county to determine how they'll be enforced.

And both the sex offender registry and the residency restrictions have been challenged on grounds that they violate ex post facto provisions of Indiana's constitution and the U.S. Constitution by imposing punishment retroactively.
Two Lafayette sex offenders were told they could move home last fall after the Indiana Supreme Court determined they owned their residences before the 2006 restrictions took effect.

Arbitrary distance?

"If the folks know they're going to be monitored consistently, it does create an atmosphere where they know people are watching," said state Rep. Sheila Klinker, D-Lafayette. "Strong monitoring is the key there."

This is really sad, monitoring means knowing where the former offenders live (i.e., sleep for a few hours of the day/night.), in the eyes of this lawmakers. How in heavens name is that monitoring? Lawmakers continue to bamboozle the public!

She voted in favor of the residency restrictions.

But Klinker acknowledged that nothing in that legislation prevents child sex offenders from spending their days at the so-called child safety zones.

"They can stay all day in the park, so long as they go home to sleep," Klinker said. "I expect this could be something brought up at the state level. ... This is a very good point that probably should be investigated." ..Source.. SOPHIA VORAVONG

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Restrictive sex offender registration rules force some underground

A careful review of this article will reveal that, no consideration was given to the allowable "grace period" to register which may account for many. If one registers at a shelter then leaves the next day, and from then on is on the streets (or registers in another shelter), the fact that he registered for one night at a shelter will distort the picture, unless grace periods are considered; here they are not.

As to where a repeat offender, commits a new sex offense, one cannot look purely at the "where" many other factors enter the picture before drawing conclusions. i.e., family, friends, and acquaintances, for one. Without a complete review, individual factors can distort the overall picture. The view taken in this article likely distorts the "travel to other places for crimes" scenario.

6-13-2010 Ohio:

About two-thirds of the registered sex offenders who claim to live at a men's homeless shelter on Cleveland's East Side, either have not spent a night there in the past three months or have never even set foot in the place.

And a Plain Dealer analysis suggests several of them might be living surreptitiously in the suburbs.

Court records and information provided by administrators at Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries, which runs the shelter at 2100 Lakeside Ave., confirm that more than 100 of the 166 sex offenders registered to that address are unaccounted for.

Increasingly stringent limitations on where sex offenders can live have driven many to register under false addresses and live off the grid -- beyond monitoring and treatment, say sex offender management and re-entry specialists.

And as the county's list of sex offenders grows to more than 3,000, with fewer resources to monitor them, it is impossible to know how many might have registered under one location and are living at another.

State law prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care facility, and many communities have passed ordinances expanding those restrictions to include parks, libraries, even churches.

But detectives argue that, although residency restrictions pose housing problems for some, in most cases, the offenders simply are attempting to keep their whereabouts unknown.

"If there were no restrictions at all on where these guys could live, they would still lie to us," Detective Sue DeChant said in a recent interview. "They say they're not working, and they have a job. They say they don't have a vehicle, and they own 25 of them. They just don't want anyone to know who they are."

Sex offenders must register their address and other information with the sheriff's office every 90 days for a period of at least 10 years. The information, along with photos of the offenders, is posted on the state attorney general's website and is intended to alert residents of the presence of sex offenders in their neighborhoods.

After an offender is convicted, he or she has three days to register, a process that takes about an hour initially.

Playing a game of cat-and-mouse

DeChant said in many cases, it is obvious the offenders are not homeless when they try to register as a resident at the men's shelter. They often show up wearing nice clothes, jewelry or expensive-looking sunglasses and accessories, she said. Photos of the offenders on the registry website corroborate the detective's observations.

But offenders are required only to sign a document pledging that the information they provide is accurate, and they do not have to prove residency.

Within a week, a deputy sheriff will visit the shelter, call or send a list of names to cross-reference with the shelter's electronic check-in system that keeps track of attendance at the facility. But by then, the offender is off the radar.

Sheriff's detectives, who called the process a cat-and-mouse game, say that in any given week, at least one or two offenders are found to have fraudulently registered to the shelter.

After The Plain Dealer asked the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office for a list of the shelter's sex offenders whose whereabouts are unknown, detectives said they discovered two dozen new cases of registration violations that will be passed on to a grand jury for indictment in the coming weeks.

"A guy who is trying to assimilate and make good in his community is going to make good," said Detective Katie Orlando. "But these guys are using a very positive program in their own deceitful and deceptive way. And we want to do all we can to stop them from doing it."

But the detectives acknowledge that preventing registration fraud and maintaining the integrity of the registry is a daunting task for the department with only two deputies managing a growing sex offender caseload. ..Click for the remainder of article.. Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Suit challenging city ordinance transferred to federal court

5-22-2010 Pennsylvania:

EBENSBURG — A state inmate’s lawsuit challenging the legality of a Johnstown ordinance limiting where sex offenders can live has been transferred to the U.S. District Court in Johnstown by the city.

Pittsburgh attorney Edward Joyal, who represents the city and city officials, said the lawsuit should be heard in the federal court because it alleges U.S. constitutional and civil rights violations.

Under law, such a transfer is automatic and now has been docketed at the federal court in Johnstown.

Kevin Murtha, a convicted sex offender now at State Correctional Institution-Coal Township, contends that the city ordinance is blocking his parole to a halfway house in Johnstown and wants the court to declare the ordinance invalid. He filed the lawsuit in Cambria County court in April.

Murtha is eligible for parole on the condition that he live in a halfway house under state supervision.

The city ordinance prohibits defendants convicted of some sex crimes from residing within 2,500 feet of such places as schools, parks, playgrounds and community centers. Johnstown’s Central Park is within that restricted area of the halfway house on Washington Street. ..Source.. by Sandra K. Reabuck

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Do sex offender boundary laws work?

Just because a law is popular doesn't make it effective! These laws are nothing more than banishment of undesirables, child safety is a ruse perpetrated by politicians. Finally, there isn't an ounce of evidence that these laws enhance public safety, in fact, by diverting taxpayer money to these laws, there is less for normal law enforcement.

4-5-2010 North Dakota:

Piepkorn says yes, but those who’ve studied issue disagree: There’s no doubt that a ban on sex offenders living within 1,200 feet of Fargo’s schools or parks would be popular. Dave Piep­korn, the city commissioner backing that idea, said the reaction he’s had from Fargo residents has been “overwhelmingly positive,” and in a nonscientific online Forum poll last week, 86 percent of the 2,188 votes were in favor.

There’s no doubt that a ban on sex offenders living within 1,200 feet of Fargo’s schools or parks would be popular.

Dave Piep­korn, the city commissioner backing that idea, said the reaction he’s had from Fargo residents has been “overwhelmingly positive,” and in a nonscientific online Forum poll last week, 86 percent of the 2,188 votes were in favor.

“The majority of people have said it makes sense,” Piepkorn said.

The enthusiasm explains why sex offender residency laws have grown quickly in the decade or so since they were first enacted. A report by the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the Department of Justice, states that from 2000 to 2008, the number of states with restrictions for sex offender housing went from five to nearly 30.

Yet Fargo’s police chief and the head of an area nonprofit that works with victims of sexual violence are both dubious about the effectiveness of such laws. And they’re not alone.

Studies of sex offender residency laws in areas they’ve been tried haven’t found any positive effect on recidivism rates. Authorities who deal with sex offenders – police, prosecutors and probation and parole agents – often end up opposing the buffer-zone restrictions.

“It’s almost totally driven by emotion,” said Richard Tewksbury, a University of Louisville professor of justice administration who studies sex offender laws. “Without exception, all the research shows there is no impact.”

Pushed to margins

Gary Davis is a Level III sex offender, a 65-year-old who must register for life because of two indecent exposure convictions in North Dakota, the latest in Cass County in 2007. Level III is the designation for sex offenders who are deemed the highest risk to re-offend.

He had difficulty finding a place to live at first, being turned down by a handful of landlords before ending up at 1122 2nd Ave. S. in Fargo – one of four Level III offenders in the apartment building.

Davis has no complaints about the small apartment, though he said his hopes for rehabilitation would be better if he were elsewhere.

“You’re in the place you are trying to get out of,” he said.

It doesn’t appear the building Davis lives in would be affected by the 1,200-foot law. City planners are still working on a map plotting the restricted areas, but a similar map produced by The Forum indicates the largest swaths of area left open to sex offenders would be downtown and in the industrial parts of the city straddling Main Avenue between Interstate 29 and 25th Street. Much of the city would be off-limits.

That’s one of the troubles with broad bans on where sex offenders can live, said Tewksbury. If they can find a place at all, it’s in “the poorest, most disorganized, least desirable areas of the city,” he said, where it is more common for children to be unsupervised.

It also tends to make it harder for sex offenders to access treatment, find jobs and have a support system – all keys to crime-free life.

“We simply make life more difficult in the important ways,” Tewksbury said.

Davis agreed, saying that isolation makes his recovery much harder.

“The only way to be back in society is to be around people,” he said.

If the law pushes offenders away, Piepkorn said, that’s fine with him. That’s partially the point, he said.

“I think we’d be sending a message that convicted sex offenders aren’t welcome in Fargo. That’s the bottom line, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that.”

Police Chief Keith Ternes said that sort of take on sex criminals is overhyped.

“We’ve put a scarlet letter on those people,” he said. “It’s not the only offender out there to be concerned about.”

Hardship without upside

Ternes is worried the 1,200-foot ordinance could lead more offenders to stop registering, as they must do under state law, which would in turn take up more of the police’s time.

That’s what happened in Iowa, one of the first places where offenders were barred from living by schools or parks. The state repealed the law upon the urging of law enforcement officials. It’s a case Ternes has pointed out publicly.

Tewksbury said he has conducted a study of re-offending rates in Iowa during the time the law was in place, though it hasn’t yet been published. Recidivism was unchanged, though the law put a greater burden on both the offenders and the authorities responsible for keeping tabs on them.

“It poses many hardships, with no real possibility of benefits,” he said.

The chief is also skeptical that a geographical separation between places kids go and offenders’ homes does much to keep children safe.

Piepkorn said the law’s main purpose is to protect the most vulnerable people in society – children.

Yet a sex offender who’s looking to strike again can simply travel to those same areas, Ternes said. Also, a study in Minnesota showed that’s a rare occurrence.

That study of 224 repeat sex offenders from 1990 to 2005 found that 16 of them made contact with a juvenile victim within a mile of their home, but none of the contacts happened near a school, park or playground.

Piepkorn said he thinks some researchers “have an agenda” to support rights for sex offenders and said he’s been getting most of his negative feedback from out-of-state groups.

As for Ternes’ opposition to the residency ordinance, Piepkorn said: “He just has a different perspective. I have no problem with disagreement.”

Greg Diehl, the executive director of the local Rape and Abuse Crisis Center, said though he can see the rationale of Piepkorn’s proposal, he doesn’t think much of the 1,200-foot law, either. He’d rather see new approaches implemented.

“I’m not sure that this would solve a whole lot of anything,” Diehl said. “The biggest issue is there are no easy answers.”

“At least it’s being talked about,” Diehl added.

‘A positive effect’

Davis said he doesn’t understand why he would be barred from living near the places children go since he has no record of abusing minors.

“Sex offender: That’s just a word,” he said. “It should be based on the charge.”

That’s also what Tewksbury suggested: reserving residency limits to those who’ve abused children. Otherwise, buffer laws rely on the assumption that all sex offenders target kids.

Piepkorn said he wants to fashion the law based on how it had worked in other places. “You want it to have a positive effect,” he said.

He said he’s leaning toward proposing the city law only apply to the Level III and medium-risk Level II offenders – roughly 25 percent of Fargo’s 155 registered sex offenders.

Piepkorn said he would potentially consider having the law only apply to those convicted of crimes against children.

City Attorney Erik Johnson is researching the laws enacted in other areas and working on a draft ordinance, Piepkorn said. A small group working on the proposal – which includes Ternes – plans to meet next week to take up the issue.

The proposal wouldn’t be in front of the commission until after that, Piepkorn said. He expects the debate about it to be robust.

“I will guarantee that will happen,” he said. ..Source.. Dave Roepke

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender sues Putnam County over residency ban

3-18-2010 New York:

A registered sex offender ordered to move from his parents Southeast home has sued Putnam County, claiming its 2007 law restricting where sex offenders can live is unconstitutional and would "banish" him from Putnam.

Brian Edward Morrissey, a former teacher in Virginia who served nine years in federal prison for possessing child pornography, is fighting in court to be allowed to remain in his parents' Cobb Road home. Morrissey, 39, moved back there in 2006.

He is classified as a Level 3 offender, considered the most likely to re-offend, and it was Morrissey's presence in Putnam that largely prompted county lawmakers to adopt a local law in April 2007 banning Level 2 and Level 3 offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, child care facility, municipal recreational facility or open space area.

The law, which was amended in May 2009, did not go into effect immediately. It was not until September 2009 that Morrissey got a letter from the Putnam County Sheriff's Office advising him that he would have to move by Wednesday. His Cobb Road address is within 1,000 feet of an open field near Peach Lake that has been designated under the law as a child-safety zone.

Morrissey's lawsuit, filed in state Supreme Court in Carmel on Tuesday, one day before his move-out deadline, argues the county law is illegal and unconstitutional on several fronts. These include that the state already has jurisdiction over sex offenders through Megan's Law, which requires them to register, preempting the county from enacting its own penalties and restrictions; that it retroactively punishes sex offenders convicted of crimes before the 2007 law was enacted and those, like Morrissey, living in certain locations before the law made those addresses illegal and that it robs offenders of their due process rights.

The residency restriction "effectively banishes (Morrissey) from Putnam County and thus draws the inference he is being punished based on public animus towards level two and level three sex offenders," states the lawsuit filed by Mahopac attorney Francis J. O'Reilly.

In addition to Morrissey, two other registered sex offenders received letters in September telling them they had to move, according to the sheriff's office. ..Source.. Terence Corcoran

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

I testified against repeal of local sex offender ordinances

Sex Offender Advocates should study how this Senator presented her arguments with supports and conclusion, then mirror her method with counter arguments, for every sex offender issue that comes up in any state. One can always learn from lawmakers advocates so often try to convince otherwise.

3-12-2010 Wisconsin:

Here is testimony I (Sen Mary Lazich) gave to the state Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts today about Assembly Bill 759 and its companion bill in the state Senate, Senate Bill 548:
Senator Mary Lazich - Testimony - Assembly Bill 759
Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts
Greetings, Committee Chairman Parisi and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts about Assembly Bill 759.

Assembly Bill 759 (AB 759) and Senate Bill 548 (SB 548) impose the greatest risk to children and families in the state of Wisconsin. Eliminating local ordinances that allow local communities and local law enforcement to do their jobs to protect society would put all residents, particularly children, in danger. Approving AB 759 and SB 548 would put you and all of our constituents in the state of Wisconsin collectively in danger.

Why do I say that prohibiting a local sex offender ordinance in a community remote to your district would put you and your constituents in danger? We have outstanding law enforcement in the state of Wisconsin and they do an excellent job protecting us. As a legislator you know you can speak with law enforcement in any of the communities you represent, and they, more than anyone else, are best equipped to inform you about crime in the community. They know the daily challenges to protect the community. Each day they take on the incredible responsibility of knowing their community and preempting crime. By eliminating their ability to do their job, and transferring that responsibility to the state, you, your family, and your constituents are not safe visiting or traveling through communities in the state of Wisconsin. The ability for law enforcement to fully and effectively do their job is severely hampered because AB 759 and SB 548 transfer the responsibility for community safety to the state. The state does not have the full and adequate understanding of the community. Local law enforcement does have that keen knowledge and expertise suited for their community.

One of the communities I am honored to represent, Franklin is the leading pioneer about this issue. Franklin officials carefully examined case law, reports, studies, and articles from around the country before adopting two sex offender ordinances. Special attention was given to an important Florida trial court case October 11, 2007, the state of Florida v. Schmidt.

During the trial, two expert witnesses, Dr. Jill Levenson and Dr. Chris Robison agreed with research concluding that in the 15 years following release of sex offenders, about 24 percent will re-offend, and that offenders with a prior sex offense conviction have even higher recidivism rates.

Although Dr. Levenson and another expert witness, Dr. Luis Rosell both testified against sex offender residency restrictions, they both find that reducing access to children can reduce the likelihood of a sex offense. Dr. Levenson testified that she once wrote, “It makes sense that risk might be managed by reducing some of the exposure to children and prohibiting them from living near places where children congregate.” Furthermore, Dr. Rosell had testified in a previous case, Doe v. Miller that “reducing a specific sex offender’s access to children was a good idea, and that if you remove the opportunity, then the likelihood of reoffense is decreased.”

Armed with this critical information, Franklin approved its two sex offender ordinances. During 2008, the Franklin ordinances prevailed over nine constitutional challenges, and Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Franke ruled the ordinances constitutional.

Today, dozens of municipalities around Wisconsin have enacted similar ordinances. They have made the critical decision to utilize a legal and law enforcement tool they believe best suited for their communities. The state should not be stripping Wisconsin communities of their weapon to protect children.

AB 759 and SB 548 are direct attacks on the communities that have enacted ordinances, and a direct attack on children and their parents. AB 759 and SB 548 violate the all-important concept of self-governance and home rule by striking down laws that benefit the health and well-being of citizens.

Can the state be trusted with the responsibility of ensuring families and their children are safe from sex offenders? A recent, highly publicized case suggests the answer is emphatically no.

During 1998, a Dane County Circuit Court Judge ruled Lindon Knutson to be a sexually violent person. Lindon Knutson had a very serious criminal record including convictions for rape and kidnapping, and was committed to a mental health facility. During March of 2009, a Dane County Circuit Court judge discharged Lindon Knutson from his commitment.

It is reported that there was one assessment of Lindon Knutson relied upon for his release. One assessment, and that one assessment, was that he was safe to be released.

During November 2009, Knutson was arrested in Wilmar, Minnesota for allegedly asking for a church tour conducted by a 73-year-old woman, and then beat, raped, and robbed the woman.

Taking away the authority of municipalities and transferring decisions about offenders’ whereabouts to state bureaucrats is not just risky, it is dangerous. Committee members, please give serious consideration to the stakes. Communities in your districts are best equipped to apply safety.

AB 759 and SB 548 would repeal ordinances in communities that committee members represent including Glendale, Glenmore, the village of Wrightstown, New Holstein, the Town of Sheboygan, Oostburg, Reedsburg, and dozens of other communities throughout Wisconsin.

Think about the ramifications of this legislation. AB 759 and SB 548 are gambling. It is gambling with lives of children and the lives of all Wisconsin residents. These two bills increase the chance of children and Wisconsin residents being killed by released sex offenders, and before they will be killed, they will be tortured. We should be making it more difficult for offenders to kill children, not easier for them to sexually and violently rape and kill our constituents. We owe it to children, their parents, and all Wisconsin residents to reject this legislation, and allow communities the power to keep an important weapon in their fight against sex offenders.

My bet and my gamble are with local law enforcement, local citizens, and local elected officials, not with the state. ..Source.. Mary Lazich (State Senator)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court rejects claim that sex offender residency requirement is unconstitutional

Read carefully, this was a suit by four parolees. Accordingly, law is not unconstitutional as to the facts of these four cases. When folks are on parole or probation, the state, can do more than if they were not on parole or probation; different circumstances.

3-1-2010 California:

Rules law applies to those convicted before 2006 measure approved by voters

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday (2-1-2010) that a sex offender residency restriction enacted by voters in 2006 applies to people who were convicted before the measure passed but paroled afterward.

The panel, in a decision issued in San Francisco, by a 5-2 vote rejected a claim by four anonymous parolees who contended the measure was an illegal and unconstitutional retroactive punishment.

At the same time, the court unanimously left open a broader constitutional challenge to the law, which was enacted as Proposition 83 and is sometimes known as Jessica's Law in memory of a Florida girl who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender.

The law bars those who have been released from prison and are required to register as sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park used by children.

The four anonymous parolees claimed in a lawsuit filed in 2007 that the requirement blocks off most or all of entire cities, including almost all of San Francisco, as residential areas for them.

The state high court said the parolees could continue their constitutional challenge, but must begin their cases at the trial level in county superior courts, because the facts are different in each of the four cases.

The trial courts will be in San Francisco, Santa Clara and San Diego counties, the three counties into which the four men were paroled.

The four parolees contend the measure violates their state and federal constitutional privacy, travel and due process rights. ..Source.. Jeb Bing, Pleasanton Weekly Staff

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

N.H. House passes bill preventing communities from limiting sex offenders

2-19-2010 New Hampshire:

CONCORD — A bill that would prevent communities from establishing residency restrictions for sex offenders has passed the state House of Representative and is on its way to the Senate.

House Bill 1484, which would prohibit any political subdivision of the state from adopting an ordinance or bylaw that restricts the residence of a sex offender or an offender against children, passed the House without any discussion, according to state Rep. Beth Rodd, D-Bradford.

Rodd proposed the bill in response to a district court ruling regarding Dover's former ordinance, City Code 131-20, which prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or day care center. Judge Mark Weaver ruled the ordinance unconstitutional in August after a 2008 challenge by the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union.

Rodd said she is confident the bill will make its way through the state Senate and eventually end up in the governor's office to be signed into law because there has been much testimony about how such residency restrictions discourage sex offenders from registering.

"It's dangerous to restrict residency for sex offenders because it diminishes law enforcement's ability to track these offenders," she said.

The passing of this bill could be a blow to HB 1442-FN, which would bar offenders against children from living within 2,000 feet of a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school or a child care facility anywhere in the state.

That bill will be on the House floor March 3, but doesn't have the support of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

State Rep. Alfred Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, sponsor of HB 1442-FN, didn't return a call seeking comment Thursday.

Rodd said she doubts that bill will make it to the Senate, as her bill already has passed.

The issue of sex offender residency restrictions began to garner statewide attention in 2008 when the NHCLU filed a motion on behalf of registered sex offender Richard Jennings to dismiss Dover's ordinance.

Jennings violated the ordinance in November 2007 when he moved within 1,200 feet of a kindergarten on Locust Street. He was also charged with felony-level failure to register as a sexual offender for allegedly not notifying police when he moved from Portsmouth to Dover. The ordinance was ruled unconstitutional in August 2009 because it violated Jennings' equal protection rights and the city failed to prove the ordinance accomplished its intended purpose of protecting children.

"Even if the State could establish that restricting where convicted sex offenders live will reduce the likelihood that they will re-offend, the State has failed to show how a 2,500-foot buffer zone is substantially related to protecting children, as opposed to 1,000 feet or 500 feet," the ruling said.

Dover immediately stopped enforcing the ordinance after the District Court decision came out.

The decision only affected Dover's ordinance and didn't stop the towns of Franklin, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen from enforcing similar ordinances in their communities. ..Source.. Aaron Sanborn

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender agency faults Megan's Law drawbacks

2-17-2010 California:

SACRAMENTO — California's free-swinging approach to laws aimed at sex offenders has made thousands of them homeless, bloated the parolee database and spawned costly programs with little evidence they make residents safer, according to members of a state board that recommended several changes Tuesday.

Those laws also failed to help nab Phillip Garrido, the paroled rapist accused of abducting Jaycee Dugard, said lawmakers at a Capitol hearing Tuesday.

Just what they figure to do about it remains uncertain. A handful of state lawmakers at the hearing openly mulled the political risks of a "soft on crime" tag.

Homelessness has spread among the parolees, said Matthew Cate, secretary of corrections and rehabilitation. More than a quarter of the 8,750 offenders on parole are transient, and another 900 are at large, he said.

Before Jessica's Law, which barred sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather, fewer than 100 were homeless.

In San Francisco, which is blanketed with the 2,000-foot zones, 84 percent of paroled sex offenders are homeless, he said.

The state Sex Offender Management Board, which issued the report, cites studies showing that kind of instability increases the risk of another sex offense.

GPS can help parole agents keep track, Cate said, but he admitted the state agency has struggled with the technology. Garrido's parole agent ignored dozens of alarms that the parolee's GPS anklet failed to send a signal.

Cate said about 7,100 parolee sex offenders have GPS anklets, at a cost of more than $55 million a year.

Again expressing regret for the agency's handling of the Garrido case, Cate cited several changes made since, including more training for agents, a new level of parole management and closer scrutiny of GPS signals.

Some lawmakers asked whether some of the money would be better spent on treatment.

The state has largely ignored treatment, despite studies that show it significantly reduces recidivism, said Tom Tobin, a Contra Costa County psychologist and board member.

"Treatment is not coddling sex offenders. It's tough. Most sex offenders don't like it," he said. "It isn't a cure. It isn't magic. It doesn't have a positive outcome in all cases. But what does?"

Cate said the agency plans to spend $8 million on a pilot program for 800 high-risk offenders that includes treatment and other services to keep them from reoffending.

The 16-member board includes representatives of law enforcement, prosecutors, state corrections, victim advocates, county probation and treatment providers.

Their report recommends several changes to focus more attention on high-risk offenders.

Among them:

Instead of barring all sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, as Jessica's Law does, apply it to only the most serious offenders, with loitering restrictions for all.

Use GPS monitoring only with some form of community supervision.

Create a routine treatment program for all sex offenders under supervision.

Deputy Attorney General Janet Neeley, who helped create the parolee database, said the state should distinguish risk levels among all sex offenders and, like most other states, limit the time low-risk offenders stay on the registry.

Now, they remain there for life.

That would shrink the parolee database and give residents more useful information, she said.

Part of the trouble, she said, is "stranger danger." High-profile abductions or murders often spawn expansive laws, when more than 90 percent of child sex abuse victims know their abusers.

Changes in Jessica's Law that could be seen as weakening it would need voter approval.

State Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, recalled being labeled "pure evil" by his own party when he balked at tough residency restrictions for sex offenders, before 70 percent of voters backed them in 2006.

"How we untie this knot now, I can tell you, is not going to be easy," he said. ..Source.. John Simerman, Contra Costa Times

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

New law would dictate where child predators could live

2-15-2010 Virginia:

Del. Clifford "Clay" Athey (R-Front Royal), recently introduced a bill to the 2010 session of the Virginia General Assembly which would greatly restrict where child predators could live. Athey says the measure is necessary “to protect the most vulnerable citizens.”

If approved, HB 1004 would ban those who are court-ordered to register as sex offenders for crimes against children from living within 500 feet of various places children are known to frequent.

Predators would not be allowed to live near, school bus stops, community parks, playgrounds, rec centers, day cares, public pools, and schools (both public and private).

According to Virginia State Police, as of Dec. 1, 2009, there were 16,238 registered sex offenders in the Commonwealth.

As typical with such proposals, the ACLU has taken issue with the bill.

American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis told the Virginian-Pilot: “It's one thing to limit someone's mobility, to prevent them from going to certain places. It's another thing to restrict where they actually live ... There are real legal constitutional questions involved in such a restriction.”

Expressing his concern for the new restrictions child molesters would face if the measure passes, Willis said that lawmakers like Athey “tend to ... react by their emotions and react in a politically opportunistic way. That's the unfortunate trap that sex offender laws fall into.”

Currently, HB 1004 is on track to pass the Va. House of Delegates, but will face more opposition in the Democratically controlled Senate.

A few facts on child predators:

-More than 1/2 of all convicted sex offenders are sent back to prison within a year. Within 2 years, 77.9% are back. (California Department of Corrections)

This 77.9% is erroneous, a review of California's statistics (1998 through current) on Return to Prison does not reveal anything claimed here. However, this 77.9% is found on a website which keeps track of what people say, whether true or not; unverified comments.

-Many child molesters know their victims. Some stalk their victims, observing their habits as they walk to and from school. They often try to buy houses near schools or parks.
(http://www.sex-offenders.us/child.molester.list.htm)

-There are 400,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, and an estimated 80 to 100,000 of them are missing.
(National Center for Missing and Exploited Children)

-An incident of child abuse is reported, on average, every l0 seconds
(Child Study Center, NYU School of Medicine, 2006)


-In 80% of abductions by strangers, the first contact occurs within a quarter mile of the child's home. In many cases, the abduction does, too.
(U.S. Justice Dept.)

..Source.. Dave Gibson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Fewer sex offenders living in Ludington in wake of ordinance

2-11-2010 Michigan:

Fewer registered sex offenders are living in Ludington two years after the city council passed an ordinance requiring landlords to check if renters in school zones are on the Michigan Sex Offender Registry.

“We were able to clear the (sex offenders) living in those zones out of those zones and keep them out and as a result we have fewer sex offenders living in the city,” said Ludington Police Chief Mark Barnett.

Barnett said there were about 10 registered sex offenders living in school zones — a 1,000-foot radius from schools — and a total of about 65 registered sex offenders living in the city during late 2007.

“Frankly, we had a bad situation with people living in these areas,” he said about school zones.

Now there are none known in the school zones and about 45 in the city.

“We were kind of surprised by the result,” Barnett said about the overall number decreasing by so many. “It was unintended, we didn’t start out to drive them from the city.”

There was some resistance to the ordinance initially after the council approved it in October 2007, Barnett said, because it gave landlords the responsibility for checking on the renters. But, Barnett said, without the ordinance his department had no way of knowing if registered sex offenders were living in school zones.

He spoke about the issue Monday while providing his department’s 2009 annual report to the city council. ..Source.. Kevin Braciszeski - Daily News Staff Writer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Loophole frees sex offender

2-11-2010 Pennsylvania:

A legal loophole allowed a convicted sex offender to go free last week.

Matthew D. Benkoe, 25, who was convicted of sexual offenses against children in Ohio, worked last summer for an amusement company at the Lycoming County Fair in Hughesville.

Following his arrest for public drunkenness at 1:30 a.m. on July 23, it was learned that Benkoe also had failed to register as a sex offender as required by Megan's Law.

Last week, however, he was found not guilty because the law doesn't cover transient workers from out-of-state who are here for less than 30 days, according to an opinion by county Judge Marc F. Lovecchio.

Megan's Law was named after a 7-year-old New Jersey girl, Megan Kanka, who was kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered by a man who had two prior convictions for sexual offenses and lived across the street from her family.

Benkoe has a violation for being a habitual sex offender in Ohio, according to Assistant District Attorney Mary C. Kilgus, who suspects the hole in the law is a dangerous loophole.

Lovecchio stated the prosecution may have faced "an insurmountable burden" because Megan's Law does not address a situation where an individual employed by an out-of-state company is performing temporary work here.

"Megan's Law does not cover the situation where a person does not have a fixed place of habitation of some degree of permanence," Lovecchio said.

Lovecchio said he was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Benkoe was convicted of a similar offense in Ohio and that he knew he was required to register in Pennsylvania. The problem Lovecchio said he struggled with was the "residency" issue.

He cited Commonwealth v. Wilgus, a Superior Court decision handed down in June 2009, a month before Benkoe arrived in Lycoming County.

It is a case "this court is bound to follow," Lovecchio wrote. The term residence connotes a fixed geographical location within a neighborhood whose residents are entitled to notice and protection," the judge wrote.

At the trial, Benkoe's time cards were introduced and testimony indicated he was not going to be in the state for more than 14 days.

Benkoe arrived in the borough on July 13. He lived in bunkhouses at the fair.

His pay stub didn't show any rental fee deductions, only those for taxes. Lovecchio didn't believe the housing alternatives would qualify under a "residence" under Megan's Law.

Meanwhile, Kilgus said the state legislature has to address the misgivings of the law designed to protect the public from sex offenders.

"The statute requires we have to prove Benkoe or other sex offenders who are transients reside in Pennsylvania in excess of 30 days," Kilgus said.

According to Kigus, Benkoe didn't report on his employment application to the amusement company that he was convicted of any felonies.

"I'm sure you can see the danger to the public from sex offenders who come here as fair, carnival or gas line workers," Kilgus said.

"We are unable to prosecute sex offenders who are transient, who come here to work on a temporary basis, or who we can't show have lived somewhere for 30 days." ..Source.. MARK MARONEY

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...