Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything that says they are "removing" residency restrictions.
02/20/2012
By Mary Ann McGivern
The Missouri legislature is debating a bill, HB 1700 (PDF), that would end restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live. It would remove juveniles from the public registry. It would create four tiers of registrants, ranging from those least likely to re-offend to those who are assessed to be a continued threat to public safety. It would publish the top two tiers on a website, but not their workplace addresses. It would provide paths to get off the registry, which right now, is a lifetime listing.
Missouri's registry, like most across the country, has grown large. It has 16,000 names, including the foolish who urinated in the vicinity of a parking lot security camera, enraptured high school partners (one of whom is 18) and dangerous predators. The sheer number as well as the range of crimes makes the list as it is useless.
The Crime Prevention & Public Safety committee has held numerous hearings and meetings about the registry in the last year. Committee members agree that neither housing restrictions (like living no closer than two blocks from a school) nor public website listings enhance public safety.
While the intent of Congress in creating the registry was to inform the public instead of extending punishment on the offender, the registry is a continued public shaming, an enormous burden to families and a severe obstacle to employment. What business wants to be listed as a place where a sex offender works?
The assessment to place persons in tiers would rely on counselors trained to use assessment tools to measure the likelihood of future behavior. It would use risk, not past behavior, to determine rank.
One of the consequences is that Missouri could lose $500,000 in federal money. States not in substantial compliance with the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA) will lose 10 percent of highway patrol aid. Whether the feds would consider the above to be substantial compliance is the question. Another consequence could be that legislators are accused of being "soft on crime" and voted out of office.
We left the following comment on the article, which may or may not be approved:
ReplyDeleteLike said, residency restrictions do nothing to prevent crime or protect anybody, but they do cause homelessness and joblessness.
If a person is so "dangerous," do you really think they are going to not commit a crime if they want to? They will do whatever they wish, regardless of the number of unconstitutional laws on the books.
And the registry is nothing more than an online shaming hit-list that vigilantes can use to target and harass ex-offenders, their families and children. The families and children are also harassed, especially the children.
And these laws are sweeping up kids and others who are not a threat, some as young as 3 and 4. See some examples here:
http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/12/child-sex-offenders.html
Missouri may loose 500K but to enforce SORNA would most likely cost the state millions. No one brings that up-why not? If the state of Missouri gave the same attention to drug trafficking and alcohol abuse and illegal manufactured alcohol then you could put all the citizens of Missouri in prison. Then law enforcement can track everybody when they get out of prison. We could even totally ignore the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteNow is this a great plan or what?