Original Article02/15/2012
By Diana Crawford
Amarillo - Today's Amarillo City Commission meeting brought an unexpected turn of events, when officials decided to put a measure to restrict where area sex offenders can live, on hold.
City officials were set to finally vote on the issue today, after months of discussion, but instead, the debate continues.
Mayor Paul Harpole says, "I think we have to further study what's going to have the most effect to protect our children. We don't want to put up an ordinance that doesn't have an effect."
As it now stands, the ordinance would restrict registered sex offenders whose convictions involve a minor, from living within 1,000 feet of any place children commonly gather.
- We have noticed before, they say these residency restrictions are for those whose convictions involve minors, but, when you look at who is really affected, it is usually everyone who is on the registry.
But even after listening to yet another round of experts and doing their own extensive research, city officials still couldn't come to an agreement.
City Commissioner Dr. Brian Eades (Facebook) says, "I've found very consistently there's not a lot of benefit in limiting where folks can live. What really seems to be the benefit is closer monitoring."
Which is why a new suggestion was brought to the table that focuses less on where sex offenders live, and more on what they are doing.
Eades explains, "I think the idea should be that we send local officers several times a year to check up on individuals who are on the sexual offender registry to make sure they're registered and to find out what they're doing, where they're working, and who their contacts are."
Now city officials will consider this new idea, but the original ordinance will remain on the table.
Harpole says, "What we really want to do is let people know who are at a high-risk of re-offending that we are concerned, we are watching, and they better stay away from our children. We want to protect them as best we can. But it's not a magic pill that solves the problem. Parents need to be aware of who their children are with and what's going on."
City officials say the issue will be voted on in the next month or so, once all the research is done on the new idea.
Eades explains, (in part) " make sure they're registered and find out what they are doing,where they're working, and who thier contacts are."...........WHAT THE????????? I thought compliance checks at a registered offenders home,not on probation or parole, were just to make sure they actually reside at the address they have given authorities? But "check on who their CONTACTS are?" And do they really think they are keeping the public safer when they do compliance checks, say 10 times a year? What about the other 355 days?
ReplyDeleteI don't know people, maybe it's just me............but I find it hard to fathom the professionalisim of some of these lawmakers.
My favorite line: "I am a law-abiding citizen. I have nothing to say and do not consent to any searches. Have a good day."
ReplyDeleteMuch to my dismay, I was informed by my PO on Tuesday that I needed to register my girlfriend's home as a secondary residence. To fail to do so would be a probation violation...
ReplyDeleteThis came shortly after a big speech about how I should work to strengthen my personal relationships...
Sounds a little hypocritical to me...
The registration didn't take long and the PD in her area didn't seem to care as long as my district knew about it but adding her to the scrutiny that I'm under is something I seek to avoid!
My previous PO (I just changed hands) was much better at his job and left me alone. This new lady (apparently she has something to prove) has me jumping through hoops every 5 minutes!
Arrrgh!
When will they realize that constant badgering is not conducive to re-building your life?!