Pure insanity! Now, with this law, all it would take is for a neighbor to get some playground equipment in their yards, and if I understand it right, then offender would then be forced to move.
02/27/2012
JUNEAU -- More question than answers have spun out of a House Judiciary Committee hearing that would allow judges to ban sex offenders from living at a residence with "outdoor recreational equipment" suitable for kids under 16.
Rep. Pete Petersen, D-Anchorage, said he wrote HB 278 (PDF) after he was told about a case in which a man stands accused of using a trampoline to lure three kids who claim they were abused. Everyone at the committee hearing was in agreement that Petersen's bill is well-intentioned, but an array of concerns was raised by committee members and people who testified on behalf of state organizations and interest groups.
Rep. Steve Thompson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, felt like the wording was vague enough that it would create a lot of unintended problems. "What about snow machines, or basketballs?" said Thompson, R-Fairbanks. "Would those count?"
Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Anchorage, was concerned that the bill might be redundant because judges can already ban certain living conditions if they believe it to be a fitting requirement. Another concern was less about the wording of the bill and struck more at the core of its approach.
Carmen Gutierrez, deputy commissioner of the Department of Corrections, said the recidivism rate is likely to increase if laws further limit housing options available to sex offenders.
She cited a survey of more than 4,000 parolees that found an unstable living situation to be the strongest predictor that sex offenders would violate conditions of their probationary release.
"By and large, restrictions cause offenders to live at homeless shelters, which often have 30-day limits," Gutierrez said after the hearing. "When individuals leave shelters and end up in homeless encampments, supervision becomes very difficult."
The bill was held pending amendments and another hearing.
In the interest of fair and objective reporting (its gotta work both ways) here is more about the bill:
ReplyDeleteHOUSE BILL NO.278
"An Act allowing as a condition of probation for a defendant convicted of certain sex offenses a prohibition against the defendant's residing at a residence where outdoor recreational equipment suitable for use by children under 16 years of age is located on the property."
http://housemajority.org/spon.php?id=27hb278
Whether or not the automatic reflex to change LAW based one accusation(!) is insane and a complete waste of tax payer money by 'legislators' trying to make a name for themselves is a different discussion...
I would like to see the data and statistics that lawmakers use to justify making proximity laws. I have yet to see any. I have however, read volumes of articles and studies done by respected professionals in the field, who say that proximity laws as well as the public registry do little in preventing crime or keeping the public safer. The facts are out there. Lawmakers are undoubtedly privy to them just as we are, but most ignore them. I was always under the impression that civil comittment was for the people who couldn't controll themselves and might harm a child post incarceration. So why have all of the restrictions for people that the Government itself has allowed back into the public. These ex-offenders are TRYING to move forward and become productive members of society. Isn't that the objective here?
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if the Government WANTS ex-offenders to fail, although they would never admit to that. As far as recidivisim rates go, registered offenders have the LOWEST rate for new sex offenses. I don't care who it is, ANY person forced into homelessness is NOT going to be very positive about thier lives. Bottom line..............One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that most of the public doesn't WANT to give an ex-offender a chance, and most of our lawmakers are more than happy to oblige them. Insanity indeed!
Why not just ban sex offenders from living period?
ReplyDeleteIt would not surprise us if they did just that. Hitler did it, and most, from what I remember, of the Germans moved here after WW2.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are so wrapped up in trying to outdo each other that they completely miss the fact that they are repeating history. Man's inhumanity to man is one of the few constants in the universe and until we can get past this design flaw (or bad influence) then I doubt that Christ will see a point in returning...
ReplyDeleteMy opinion, of course, since I'm only human...