CA - Los Angeles news Mom Speaks Out About Irvine-aposs Proposed Sex Offender Law

Video Description:
Erin Runnion founder of The Joyful Child Foundation lost her beautiful young daughter Samantha to a sex offender. She talks to Colleen Williams on Nonstop News LA about Irvine-aposs proposed ban on sex offenders near parks...

Video Link

We are so sick of the media and others making it appear as if all ex-sex offenders are out hiding behind bushes in parks, drooling, just waiting for some kid to snatch. It's pure fear mongering that is not backed by the facts.

You will notice how most news agencies queue up some playground or park scene near the beginning or during the video to make it seem as if all ex-sex offenders are child molesting, pedophile predators, which is pure BS!

When are you going to report all sides other the story and all facts, instead of the usual BS to help you get ratings and viewers?

You continue to put all ex-sex offenders into the child molesting, pedophile predators category, which is simply not true. That would be like saying all ex-felons are serial killers because a couple are.

Not all ex-sex offenders enter parks to "leer" at children! Many ex-sex offenders have children of their own and are simply taking them there for the same reasons you do, to play and have fun. Not all offenders have harmed children, or even adults.

This is the type of mentality that is keeping the hysteria alive, instead of solving problems.

Are ex-sex offenders going to get a tax break because they cannot use the parks they are paying taxes for? They should!

---

CA - Restrictive Residency Rules and the Illusion of Public Safety

Original Article

05/05/2013

By Patti Giggans

There are risks of increasing restrictive residency rules for sex offenders while reducing their access to resources, and monitoring.

The latest strategy to restrict where convicted sex offenders live is to create parks where none exist to force registered sex offenders to move out of a neighborhood. The City of Los Angeles plans to build three pocket parks in the communities of Harbor Gateway and Wilmington. California state law prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park, playground school or a daycare center. Some states restrict living within 1,000 feet or near certain bus stops. There are similar residence restrictive laws in every state along with sex offender databases and community notification of where offenders live, known as Megan’s Laws. The unintended result of super-restrictive sex offender zoning makes it impossible for sex offenders to find stable housing and forces them to cluster and crowd together in motels and apartment buildings, or sometimes under bridges creating homelessness, often away from family or other potentially positive supports. There is concern that these over-restrictive policies can backfire and actually increase recidivism.

Located in southern Los Angeles, Harbor Gateway, a community of about 40,000 people, has one of the city’s highest concentrations of registered sex offenders: 86 registered offenders live in a 13-block area. The park will be created in a space the equivalent of a backyard on a grassy corner large enough to fit a jungle gym and a couple of benches. The park is being explicitly created to restrict offenders from congregating in the area not necessarily to create green space for kids to play. No one can fault the community for its concern for safety especially of its children or blame its civic leadership for wanting to do something about it. Restrictive living and working rules keep multiplying with the goal of public safety. But do these living restrictions improve public safety or exacerbate the potential for re-offending? As there are fewer and fewer places for offenders to live and work they will continue to resort to clustering or worse: go underground. Creating housing instability can limit employment opportunities and access to social services and social support. Visibility, surveillance, accountability, treatment and support are some of the protective factors that can help an offender stay on the path of non-offending and reduce recidivism.

Convicted sex offenders and registrants are all painted with the same brush of pariah and monster, so it is very challenging for communities to think beyond the criminal justice lens to include public health approaches. But might we be risking being blinded by the illusion of safety when we don’t explore the complexity and the diversity of these offenders and call for research on what really works best. There is little room for political leadership to ask these important questions. Forcing offenders to go missing or go underground by promoting overly restrictive residence and employment restrictions may very well be one of those illusions of public safety that can backfire and create more risk and increase recidivism.

Patti Giggans is the Executive Director of Peace Over Violence. Peace Over Violence is dedicated to building healthy relationships, families and communities free from sexual, domestic and interpersonal violence. She is also the Vice-President of the Board of Directors for 1in6.

---

NY - Counties struggle with homeless sex offenders

Original Article

05/05/2013

By ELIZABETH COOPER

UTICA - Since state and local laws about where they can live were tightened around a decade ago, sex offenders have become more likely to end up homeless.

That’s caused problems for counties across the state, because they are required by law to find housing for anyone who needs shelter within their borders.

Different counties have cobbled together different strategies to deal with the thorny issue, but officials and homeless advocates from several counties said there is no easy answer.
- There are easy answers! It's just something they don't want to hear. Eliminate the residency restrictions and stop letting mass hysteria define laws.

“I don’t know what the solution is,” said Greta Guarton of the advocacy group Long Island Coalition for the Homeless. “We, of course, think everyone needs a place to live, but certainly understand the community’s concerns.”

The issue came to a head in Oneida County in February, after an Observer-Dispatch report found that at least eight Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders had been housed at three North Utica motels in a two-week period. Amid public outcry, two of the motels announced they would stop taking homeless individuals referred by the county, and County Executive Anthony Picente has said he is looking for other options.

“We have to find a solution given the lay of the land here, in terms of the shelters, the neighborhoods and the community,” he said. “It’s an ongoing process and discussion.”

Sex offenders have been required to register with officials where they live since the mid-1990s. The federal government and states across the nation adopted so-called Megan’s Laws after the 1994 murder of Megan Kanka, a New Jersey child who was killed by a released sex offender living near her home.
- Why do we continue to punish everyone with similar crimes due to one bad apple?  Are we going to start doing the same for all other crimes?  One person commits a crime with a gun and all gun owners are punished?  Oh wait, they are already working on that one!

In subsequent years, states and many communities adopted laws regulating where sex offenders are allowed to live. In Oneida County, a 2007 law prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,500 feet of a school, child care facility, playground or park.

Counties in New York must find housing for any individual, regardless of their criminal history, if they come to the Department of Social Services and say they are homeless.

Read the rest of the article

---

TX - House OK’s ‘Justin’s Law’ for repeat sex offenders

Original Article

05/06/2013

Legislation to impose tougher penalties for repeat sex offenders is advancing in the Texas House.

Nacogdoches Republican Travis Clardy’s House Bill 1302 (PDF) received initial approval Monday via voice vote.

The proposal toughens state sex offender laws by making it an automatic sentence of life without parole for a second conviction involving a violent sexual assault of a child under 14. The bill covers violent crimes such as sexual assault, sex trafficking and kidnapping.

On Monday, Clardy summed up the proposal: “two strikes and you’re out for life.”

The bill, dubbed “Justin’s Law,” was prompted by the 2010 death of 12-year-old Justin Bloxom. Prosecutors say Bloxom was kidnapped and killed in Louisiana by a twice-convicted sex offender who drove a cab and used text messages to lure the boy into his taxi.

Clardy’s bill also prohibits repeat child sex offenders from working at amusement parks or seeking employment as cab, bus, or limo drivers. Similar proposals filed in the boy’s name have already been passed in Louisiana and Oklahoma.

The Texas bill still needs to clear a final House vote before moving to the Senate.

---

DC - US: More Harm Than Good (Human Rights Watch)

Original Article

Most of what is said below applies to adults offenders as well.

05/01/2013

Exempt Youth Sex Offenders From Registration Laws

Washington - Harsh public registration laws often punish youth sex offenders for life and do little to protect public safety, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. A web of federal and state laws apply to people under 18 who have committed any of a wide range of sex offenses, from the very serious, like rape, to the relatively innocuous, such as public nudity.

The 111-page report (PDF), “Raised on the Registry: The Irreparable Harm of Placing Children on Sex Offender Registries in the US,” details the harm public registration laws cause for youth sex offenders. The laws, which can apply for decades or even a lifetime and are layered on top of time in prison or juvenile detention, require placing offenders’ personal information on online registries, often making them targets for harassment, humiliation, and even violence. The laws also severely restrict where, and with whom, youth sex offenders may live, work, attend school, or even spend time.

"Of course anyone responsible for a sexual assault should be held accountable,” said Nicole Pittman, Soros Senior Justice Advocacy Fellow at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “But punishment should fit both the offense and the offender, and placing children who commit sex offenses on a public registry – often for life – can cause more harm than good.”

States and the federal government should exempt people who commit sex offenses when they are under age 18 from public registration laws because the laws violate youth offenders’ basic rights. Available research indicates that youth sex offenders are among the least likely to reoffend.

Video Link

During 16 months of investigation, Human Rights Watch interviewed 281 youth sex offenders, whose median age at offense was 15, across 20 states, as well as hundreds of offenders’ family members, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officials, experts on the topic, and victims of child-on-child sexual assault.

“I'm a ghost,” said “Dominic G.,” of San Antonio, Texas, who was required to register for an offense he committed when he was 13. “I can’t put my name on a lease, I never receive mail. No one cares if I am alive. In fact, I think they would prefer me dead.”

Throughout the United States, youth sex offenders must comply with a complex array of legal requirements that permeate virtually every aspect of their lives. Under registration laws, they must register with law enforcement, providing their name, home address, place of employment, school address, a current photograph, and other personal information. Under community notification laws, the police make this information accessible to the public, typically via the Internet.

And under residency restriction laws, youth sex offenders are prohibited from living within a designated distance – typically 500 to 2,500 feet – of places where children gather, such as schools, playgrounds, parks, and even bus stops.

There are no comprehensive statistics for the number of people under 18 in the US who are subject to these registration laws, because the national statistics generally do not separate youth sex offenders from others. Each state, US territory, and federally recognized Indian Tribe has its own set of sex offender laws, which can vary considerably, and a number of federal laws also contain requirements affecting youth sex offenders.

In 2011, the last year for which there are complete statistics, the total number of sex offenders nationally was 747,000.

The majority of youth sex offenders interviewed by Human Rights Watch were placed on a registry between 2007 and 2011, but since some state registration laws have been in place for nearly two decades, large numbers of people in the US who began registering as children are now well into adulthood. Their offenses can range from heinous crimes like rape, to consensual sex between children, to relatively innocuous actions like public nudity.

“Many people assume that anyone listed on the sex offender registry must be a rapist or a pedophile,” Pittman said. “But most states spread the net much more widely.”

The report documents the numerous ways in which youth sex offenders are harmed by registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws. Youth sex offenders are stigmatized and publicly humiliated, often causing them to become depressed and even suicidal. They may become targets of harassment and vigilante violence.

Barred from spending time near a school, much less in one, they often struggle to continue their education. Many have a hard time finding – and keeping – a job, or a home. And if they miss a deadline to register, youth sex offenders can find themselves in prison, often for lengthy terms.

Sex offender laws are designed to protect communities from sex offenses by helping police monitor past offenders. But including youth sex offenders on registries assumes that they are highly likely to reoffend, which is not the case. Numerous studies estimate the recidivism rate among children who commit sexual offenses to be between 4 and 10 percent, compared with a 13 percent rate for adult sex offenders and a national rate of 45 percent for all crimes.

The laws further assume that children are essentially younger versions of adults. However, psychological and neuroscientific research confirms that children, including teenagers, act more irrationally and immaturely than adults and should not be held to the same standard of culpability. Likewise, research indicates that children are more likely to respond to rehabilitation and treatment.

Furthermore, requiring a wide range of sex offenders to register overburdens law enforcement with large numbers of people to monitor, undifferentiated by the public safety threat they pose.

States and the federal government should exempt youth sex offenders from both registration and community notification requirements. Short of a full exemption, states should remove all youth sex offenders from registration schemes that are not specifically tailored to take account of the nature of their offense, the risk they pose – if any – to public safety, their particular developmental and cognitive characteristics, their needs for treatment, and their potential for rehabilitation.

“Painting all sex offenders with the same broad brush stymies law enforcement’s attempts to focus on the most dangerous offenders and defeats what every parent knows about how children act and how they mature,” Pittman said. “Exempting youth from harsh registration laws would both respect their rights and ability to change and improve public safety.”

See Also:

• Sex-offender registries: Should kids be listed?

---

The following are quotes from youth sex offenders and others interviewed by Human Rights Watch or contained in documents Human Rights Watch reviewed. Names of registered youth sex offenders and their family members have been abbreviated or replaced with pseudonyms to protect their privacy.

“I live in a general sense of hopelessness, and combat suicidal thoughts almost daily due to the life sentence [registration] and punishment of being a registrant. The stigma and shame will never fully go away, people will always remember.”
– Christian W., who was required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed at age 14. Tulsa, Oklahoma.

“Under the law at the time, he was looking at being put on the public registry when he turned 18. His picture, address and information on the Web.... He just couldn’t bear it.”
– Julia L., mother of Nathan L., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17. Grand Rapids, Michigan.

“Everyone in the community knew he was on the sex offender registry, it didn’t matter to them that he was removed.... [T]he damage was already done. You can’t un-ring the bell.”
– Elizabeth M., mother of Noah M., who was convicted of a sex offense at 12 and committed suicide at 17, after being removed from the registry in Michigan. Flint, Michigan.

“Suicide [among children placed on sex offender registries] is a possibility ... even predictable.”
– David S. Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders.

“A member of the community made flyers that said ‘Beware - Sex Offender in the Neighborhood.’ The flyers, with my grade school picture, offense, and address, were posted all over the place.”
– Nicholas T., placed on the registry at age 16. Portland, Oregon.

“A few months after [Max] went on the registry the local newspaper ran a Halloween story entitled ‘Know where the Monsters are Hiding,’ warning families to beware of the registered sex offenders in the neighborhood when taking their little ones out to go trick-or-treating. The article listed all the sex offenders in our town. Max’s name and address was listed.”
– Bruce W., father of a youth sex offender who started registering at 10. Weatherford, Texas.

“The police always expect you are the worst of the worst sex offenders and so they treat you that way. Most of them look down on you as if you are the scum of the earth.”
– Elijah B., placed on the registry at age 16. Houston, Texas.

“My son’s life was ruined before he even turned 18 years old. Due to the burden of registration my son dropped out of school, he is afraid to leave the house, and he cannot get a job interview. He has not committed any new crimes yet this is holding him back from becoming a good member of society.”
– Tony K., father of a child placed on the registry at 17. Kansas City, Missouri.

“Once while attempting to register my address, a police officer refused to give me the paperwork and instead stated, ‘We’re just taking your kind out back and shooting them.’”
– Maya R., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 10. Howell, Michigan.

“It makes people very angry. My brother, who looks like me, was once harassed and nearly beaten to death by a drunk neighbor who thought he was me.”
– Isaac E., who started registering at 12. Spokane, Washington.

“One time a man from one of those cars yelled ‘child molester’ at me.” A week later several bullets were fired from a car driving by. “The bullets went through the living room window as my family and me watched T.V.”
– Camilo F., registrant since age 14. Gainesville, Florida.

“I was in the [school] parking lot and this truck drove by and started throwing beer bottles at me. I had to run inside. They yelled, ‘Get out of our school, you child molester! I wish I could kill you!’”
– Joshua G., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 12. Dallas, Texas.

“Neighbors harassed our family. We later found out that one of the neighbors shot our family dog.”
– Jasmine A., mother of Zachary S., who has been on the registry since age 11. Dallas, Texas.

“For sex offenders, our mistake is forever available to the world to see. There is no redemption, no forgiveness. You are never done serving your time. There is never a chance for a fresh start. You are finished. I wish I was executed, because my life is basically over.”
– Austin S., who started registering at age 14. Denham Springs, Louisiana.

“My ten years of registration was supposed to end on September 27, 2012. It is now 2013 and I am still on the state website and all those other registration sites. I feel like it will never end.”
– Diego G., placed on the registry at age 10. Houston, Texas.

“Because of sex offender restrictions my family had to be divided up. I could not live with children. My father stayed in our house with my younger brother. My mother and me moved in with my grandparents two hours away.”
– Sebastian S., youth sex offender who started registering at age 10. Laredo, Texas.

“I worry about my two little children, ages 4 and 2, having to live in a publicly identified house and having to pay this lifelong price for something that happened years before they were born. I want to be involved in their lives but I also want them to be able to live free to be who they are without having to carry such a burden.”
– Jerry M., who started registering at 11. Wilmington, Delaware.

“With parents often the targets of blame for the sins of their children, parents of sex offenders can experience just as much fear, shame, and paranoia as their children.
– David Prescott, a social worker and expert on treatment strategies for youth sex offenders.

“I have found a few places to rent but as soon as we move in the police and neighbors harass us until we get evicted. They keep us homeless. I am banned from living in a homeless shelter.”
– Aaron I., Florida registrant since age 15. Palm Beach, Florida.

“I get hired and fired from so many jobs. I can usually keep a job for a few weeks until the employer’s name and address goes up on the sex offender registry [because registrants must provide this information]. Employers say it’s ‘bad for business’ to keep me on.”
– Elijah B., placed on the registry at 16. Houston, Texas.

“Employment is difficult. I have to support my wife and kids. I estimate that between January to April 2012 I have applied for 250 positions.”
– Joshua G., placed on the registry for an offense committed at age 12. Dallas, Texas.

“I have to look at a map before I walk anywhere. I can be arrested if I am walking anywhere near a school or park.”
– Blake G., a registrant for an offense committed at age 15. Citrus, Florida.

“These fees are associated with the registrant wherever he goes for the rest of his life. They are forever a tax on his life.”
– Ethan Ashley, attorney for James O., a youth sex offender.

“The most recent laws dilute the effectiveness of the registry as a public safety tool, by flooding it with thousands of low risk offenders like children, the vast majority of whom will never commit another sex offense.”
– Detective Bob Shilling, a former chief detective in charge of the Seattle Sex Crimes Unit responsible for making home visits to registered sex offenders.

“We cast the net widely to make sure we got all the sex offenders ... it turns out that really only a small percentage of people convicted of sex offenses pose a true danger to the public.”
– Ray Allen, a former Texas legislator and former chairman of the Texas House Corrections Committee– who once helped push tougher sex offender registration bills into law – admitting that he and his colleagues went too far.

“[O]n many state sex-offender web sites, you can find juveniles’ photos, names and addresses, and in some cases their birth dates and maps to their homes, alongside those of pedophiles and adult rapists.”
– Brenda V. Smith, a law professor and the director of the National Institute of Corrections Project on Addressing Prison Rape at American University’s Washington College of Law.

---

WI - Sturtevant Considering Sex Offender Ordinance

Original Article

04/26/2013

By Heather Asiyanbi

Neighboring communities like Racine and Caledonia have ordinances governing where sex offenders can live. Sturtevant trustees are looking into having one as well.

Sturtevant trustees are looking into whether or not they should adopt an ordinance governing where sex offenders can live.

Trustee Chris Larsen said Tuesday during the Continual Committee meeting that he got the idea after learning about a similar ordinance in Caledonia and reading in The Journal Times about the efforts to pass one in the City of Racine.

"I just want to make sure that Sturtevant doesn't become the dumping ground for sex offenders in eastern Racine County," he said. "I'd like feedback on whether or not I should continue researching."

The ordinance Larsen is proposing would only apply to offenders determined by a court to be sexually violent who are released under the state's 980 commitment petition. That statute allows the state at the end of a convicted offender's prison sentence to petition the court to commit the offender to the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, WI.

Sturtevant Chief Sean Marschke cautioned trustees to be sure the state would have to comply with local ordinance.

"If the state doesn't have to comply with our ordianances with these cases, then it's not worth pursuing," he said.

Patch contacted the Department of Human Services to find out if the state does have to comply with local ordinances.

"Yes, the state does," wrote Claire Smith in an email response to our note.

In Caledonia, the following rules apply for violent offenders released under the state's 980 petition:

• At least 1,000 feet from a school, church, park, athletic field, trail, playground, conservation district, or H.F. Johnson Park (which is managed by the city); and
• At least six blocks away from other sex offenders.

For those not under supervised release but required to register with the Department of Corrections' sex offender registry, they must live:

• At least 2,500 feet away from schools, churches, parks, athletic fields, trails, playgrounds, conservation districts, or H.F. Johnson Park; and
• At least six blocks away from other sex offenders.

- So does that make any sense? Those deemed dangerous (980's), must stay 1,000 feet away, while those less dangerous have to stay 2,500 feet away?  It seems that should be the other way around, unless we are reading something wrong?

Village President Steve Jansen agreed Larsen should continue his research.

"I'd like to see some more research into whether or not this makes sense for us," he said.

---

NY - Judge strikes down Warren County sex offender residence restrictions

Original Article

04/26/2013

By JON ALEXANDER

QUEENSBURY - A state Supreme Court judge has tossed Warren County’s sex offender law, concluding that the restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live and work ran counter to state law.

The county Board of Supervisors in 2006 passed the local law that banned sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, schools and public parks for their entire lives.

State law bans sex offenders from living in proximity of places frequented by children only until they’ve completed parole.

Warren County state Supreme Court Justice Robert Muller ruled Wednesday in favor of an unidentified Queensbury man who was told last year he couldn’t move in with his mother in Queensbury.

“While they may be well-intended, statistics show they don’t make anyone safer and they further stigmatize former offenders,” said Kathy Manley, “John Doe’s” Albany-based attorney.

Manley’s client was convicted in 2010 of sexual acts with a minor who was under 16, and he served two years in prison, according to court documents.

Local laws like Warren County’s were adopted over the past decade in places throughout the state and have since repeatedly been struck down when challenged in court, because they are superseded by state law.

Warren County opted to not contest the lawsuit and send it to a lengthy, and potentially costly, court battle because similar local laws had fared poorly in state court.

“The decision is consistent with many court decisions from other counties,” said County Attorney Martin Auffredou. “The decision sort of speaks for itself.”

The laws keep sex offenders from finding work and medical and psychological treatment, essentially subjugating them to poverty and a lack of treatment, Manley said.

Auffredou suspended enforcement of the law in February after “John Doe’s” lawsuit was filed.

The county Board of Supervisors has taken no steps to override the local sex offender law, instead allowing the Supreme Court ruling to uphold or strike down the proximity ban.

---

FL - 9 Investigates crackdown on sex offenders inside Disney World

Original Article

Just because someone wears the "sex offender" label doesn't mean they are visiting the park to find kids to molest, that is just absurd, and this is a violation of their rights.

04/25/2013

ORANGE COUNTY - A six-month-long Eyewitness News investigation has uncovered sweeping background checks at Disney parks in central Florida -- checks targeting registered sex offenders.

Investigative reporter Christopher Heath dug through hundreds of pages of Orange County Sheriff’s Office trespass reports, and they show a consistent pattern of documented sex offenders getting kicked off of Disney properties.

During the last few weeks, Heath spoke to many of the sex offenders trespassed from Disney, including a man named Mike, who is married with two adult children.

Mike, who agreed to talk on the condition that he not be fully identified, said Disney officials clearly told him, “We don’t want you at our park.”

"I didn't realize anything was happening until they wanted to talk to me in private," he said.

Mike's narrative of what happened is the same as those of more than 20 other convicted sex offenders Heath interviewed. All of them were recently trespassed from Disney properties.

Mike and his wife had season passes. They went to retrieve their passes, and she swiped her ID and got her pass. He swiped his and was told a there was a problem.
- So is Disney going to refund their money for the season passes?

"Then, they pull us off,” Mike explained, adding that he was then told, “OK, you're not allowed to be here."

Mike was officially issued a "trespass warning” from the Orange County Sheriff's Office. The warning serves notice that he is never allowed on any Disney property again.

But he’s not alone. 9 Investigates discovered at least 75 other warnings were issued since August, all to registered sex offenders.

"They just said, ‘Look, you can't come here,’" Mike said.

Some of the trespass reports Heath reviewed plainly indicate the individual kicked out is a “registered sex offender” or “on the sexual offender list.”

Others cite the individuals for “conduct not welcome” at Disney or “behaviors not meeting Walt Disney’s standards.”

But all 76 of those trespassed were registered in the’s Florida Department of Law Enforcement sex offender database or in registries outside the state.

WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the resort is well within its right to run guest names against the sex offender registries and to remove guests with convictions.

"Legally, private businesses have the right and the obligation to take every legal step to protect their patrons," Sheaffer said.
- So I guess it's "legal" for Wal-Mart or Kroger to check everyone coming in the door if they have a criminal record, like stealing, and deny them from buying food to live on (here and here)?

Of the records obtained by Eyewitness News, most of the warnings were issued to people convicted of crimes involving children.

Some, like [name withheld] and [name withheld], are classified by the state as predators.

[name withheld] was removed from Epcot on Dec. 24. [name withheld] was removed from Disney’s Hollywood Studios on March 7.

"Who are the main patrons? Families with children," said one Disney guest Heath interviewed about the sex offenders being trespassed. "As a parent, I wouldn't want a sex offender near my kids. No way.”

Noel Hernandez planned to spend 10 days at the parks with his wife and daughter. He said he doesn't mind if a few people are turned away.

"I think it's a good idea, yeah,” said another Disney guest. “It's a children's park. Kids go there. Yeah, it's a good thing. You want to be at a safe place, you want to feel safe."
- So if you are being a parent, not letting your kid just roam around at will, then what is the problem?

And if that means people like Mike can never return, he said he understands.

"I do understand that they have a public to take care of," said Mike.

Disney officials declined an interview but issued a statement that said, "While we do not share specific details of our security procedures, we are constantly strengthening our efforts so we can promote a safe environment for all our guests."

Heath reached out to the other major theme parks in central Florida about their policies regarding known sex offenders. He had not yet heard back from those parks Thursday afternoon.

---

FL - Pocket parks aren't made for children: they're designed for sex offenders

Original Article

Take the poll at the link above.

04/25/2013

By Anne Schindler

Twenty-four years ago, Donavon Lace was charged with committing a lewd and lascivious act on a 16-year-old girl. As he describes it, "It was a consensual sex act at a party."

He was 18 at the time, and the judge in the case withheld adjudication; Lace was given a sentence of probation. But after a marriage, and some time living in Colorado, he was contacted by Florida corrections officials.

"Then 2006 comes and they tell me I need to register," he recalls. "'What are you talking about?'"
- And that is ex post facto, unconstitutional, additional punishment.

Since then, Lace -- not his real name-- has been a registered sex offender. And the impact has been profound.

"So now I'm ostracized from my neighborhood."

Not just his own. In the state of Florida, sex offenders are required to live at least 1,000 feet from schools and day cares. Cities like Jacksonville and Miami required a more restrictive 2,500 feet.

"They drive these people out with things called pocket parks."

So-called Pocket Parks are the latest tool used to keep sex offenders at bay.

"It could be one swing," said Maria Kayanan, associate legal director of the of the ACLU of Florida. "It could be one rocking horse."

That's all that's been built at the Pocket Park in the Shorecrest neighborhood of Miami. Built on tiny lots in a residential neighborhood, the playground was designed to invoke setbacks that limit the footprint where sex offenders can find housing.

"You get clusters of sex offenders," said Kayanan, "and that causes the public outcry."
- You get clusters due to stupid ideas like this and the residency laws.  If you don't like it, repeal the residency laws.

That's exactly what happened in one Jacksonville neighborhood. In October, First Coast News' Heather Crawford profiled the Fairfield area north of downtown, where clustering has become a serious issue.

In just a 1-mile radius around John Love Elementary, there are more than 108 registered sex offenders and predators.

Putting in a pocket park would not affect sex offenders who already live in an area. But it would prevent new offenders from moving in. But that can create a whole new set of problems.

"When you make it impossible for anyone -- sex offender, sexual predator -- to have a stable residence, to have regular monitoring, they tend to go underground. They tend to abscond, they tend to re-offend."

The numbers may attest to that. There are currently 83 homeless sex offenders in Duval County and 1,200 in the state of Florida.

"You can't track a transient resident," Lace said. "That's the meaning of transient. 'Where do you live?' 'Nowhere!'"

For years, Miami was known for a massive homeless encampment under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, which became one of the few places sex offenders could legally live.

After that encampment was disbanded in 2010 (Video), many relocated to a vacant street corner lot in Shorecrest.

"At night it would become tent village," said Ken Jett, president of the Shorecrest Homeowners Association.

"Some had nothing but sleeping bags, some had tents. Sometimes even just a chair." said Mina Kuhn, Shorecrest HOA member.

Since the pocket park went in nearby, sex offenders no longer sleep at the corner. But they have not left Shorecrest. A Florida Department of Law Enforcement map shows the offenders are still living here, and still listed as local transients.

For Shorecrest residents, the pocket park served its purpose. But it didn't solve the problem.
- Of course it didn't solve anything! It just forces them to move from one place to another.  Are they going to continue to open these stupid pocket parks until there is nowhere to live at all?  We are sure that is what they will do.

"It's displacing the issue," said Jett.

While Lace hates what the registry has done to him, he supports them -- and residency setbacks -- in the case of child sexual predators. He was himself a victim of childhood rape.
- We do not support online registries of any kind, they need to be taken offline and used by police only to prevent vigilantism, which is a rising problem across the world where a registry is online.

"I have no love for anyone would ever harm a child," he said. "I don't want anyone to experience what I experienced."

But he insists the sexual assault was nowhere near as traumatic as his years on the registry.

"I am not scarred for life from that incident. What scarred me for life is the Adam Walsh act. If you want to talk about scars."

---

ME - Bangor council restricts where sex offenders may live

Original Article

04/22/2013

By Nick McCrea

BANGOR - In a 6-3 vote Monday night, the City Council passed an ordinance that bans some sex offenders from moving to within 750 feet of a publicly owned property frequented by children.

When the council first voted on the ordinance 28 months ago, Councilor David Nealley was the only councilor to vote in favor of the ordinance. This time around, he was joined by Councilors Joe Baldacci, Pauline Civiello, James Gallant, Charlie Longo and Benjamin Sprague.

Councilors Susan Hawes, Patricia Blanchette and council Chairman Nelson Durgin voted against the ordinance.

The residency restriction applies to individuals convicted of Class A, B or C sex offenses committed against a child under age 14. Offenders in that category who live within a 750-foot boundary won’t be required to move. However, if they did move, their residence would have to be outside the restricted zone, and they could not move back into a restricted area. That’s the most restrictive ordinance allowed under Maine law.

Bangor residents who spoke at committee and council meetings had voiced support for the ordinance.

David Green of Dunning Boulevard, who helped revive the proposed ordinance, said it would “make Bangor a less attractive destination for sex offenders,” pointing out that 21 of Bangor’s 141 registered offender registrants are from out of state and more than 60 percent of them are from outside Penobscot County.

The effectiveness of such ordinances across the country has been called into question in studies in Iowa, Colorado, California, Florida and other states. Most studies argue that the restrictions don’t have any effect, and some say they create a false sense of security in communities and decrease safety.

Councilors who voted against the ordinance, both in 2010 and again in 2013, argued that the proposal was nothing more than a feel-good ordinance.

In Minnesota, the state’s Department of Corrections conducted studies in 2003 and 2007 and found that there was no evidence that residential proximity to schools or parks affected recidivism rates, as people who offend tend to do so away from their own neighborhoods. The department’s research also found that pushing high-risk sex offenders to rural or suburban areas resulted in less access to services and supervision.

National studies indicate that more than 90 percent of child sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone who knows the child, oftentimes in the offender’s or victim’s home, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Other studies indicate that sexual predators seldom offend in their own neighborhoods and target children away from their homes.

Shawn Yardley, the city’s director of health and community services, said during Monday’s meeting that while the ordinance seemed to be “well intended,” it could give parents and the public a false sense of security by indicating to parents that it’s safe to send their kids to a park because there aren’t any sex offenders in the area. Councilors Blanchette, Durgin and Hawes have echoed those same concerns, pointing at the ineffectiveness outlined in the studies.

Even some councilors who voted in favor of the ordinance Monday conceded it might not have tangible effects, but argued that it sent a message and took a step toward solving growing problems in the city.

Nealley and Sprague each said they “struggled” with their positions on the ordinance based on questions of efficacy.

“Probably they’re right,” Nealley said of the case studies’ findings, but he added that he didn’t believe doing nothing was the right move for the city.

Gallant pointed out that one of the studies states that “only” 7 percent of child sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers. He said the use of “only” was troubling, as was the 7 percent figure.

“Even if we could save 7 percent — only 7 percent — it would be a good idea,” Gallant said.

Other councilors said that if the ordinance prevented one incidence of sexual abuse of a child, it would be worthwhile.

“We need to make our families here in Bangor our No. 1 priority,” Civiello said, arguing that the passage of the ordinance would send a message to residents and outsiders, much like the disruptive property ordinance and support of a bill that would reduce the city’s share of methadone patients.

Also during Monday’s meeting, the council voted to place a 180-day moratorium on quarries in the city after year-old concerns about noise and ailing property values suddenly re-emerged during committee meetings in March. Councilors said they would like to come to a solution well before the 180 days are up.

See Also:

• Ohio Public Defender’s Office says sex offender registry doesn’t improve public safety

---

ME - Bangor council to vote on sex offender residency restriction again; studies question effectiveness

Original Article

04/21/2013

By Nick McCrea

BANGOR - City councilors will decide Monday whether to ban convicted sex offenders from moving to within 750 feet of publicly owned property used primarily by children — the same idea councilors shot down in a lopsided 8-1 vote 28 months ago.

The residency restriction would apply to individuals convicted of Class A, B or C sex offenses committed against a child under age 14. Offenders in that category who currently live within a 750-foot boundary wouldn’t be required to move. However, if they did move, it would have to be outside a restricted zone and they could not move back into a restricted area. That’s the most restrictive ordinance allowed under Maine law.

The ordinance, which councilors dusted off again for a series of committee meetings beginning in March, does not apply to privately owned facilities, such as museums or day cares.

Residents attending committee meetings, both in 2010 and more recently, largely supported the restrictions.

“At this point in time, I would welcome any restrictions on the locations of sex offenders in any manner,” Steven Hicks of Sanford Street said during an April 17 Government Operations Committee meeting. “I don’t want to be welcoming to them.”

There are 141 registered sex offenders living in Bangor, with 21 coming from out of state. Another 35 convicted sex offenders work in Bangor but live elsewhere. About 73 of those registered offenders living in Bangor committed their crimes against someone under age 14 and would be targeted under the statute, according to City Councilor Pauline Civiello. Civiello said she was concerned that Bangor might be attracting offenders.

Donna Wright of Ohio Street also welcomed the proposed restrictions.

“We are not trying to welcome more and more of these people into the community,” Wright said. “Let us not be worried so much about their rights, but let’s be a little more concerned about the message that we’re sending.”

In 2010, councilors who voted against the residency restriction did so because they felt it was a feel-good ordinance that wouldn’t improve children’s safety. Some were concerned it might make children less safe by giving parents a false sense of security.

Councilor David Nealley, who is on the council again this year, was the only councilor to vote in favor of the residency restriction in 2010, arguing it would have sent a strong message.

Studies conducted across the country call into question whether sex offender residency restrictions are effective. Several reports provided by city staff to the council in both 2010 and again this year indicate that the ordinances typically prove ineffective.

In Minnesota, the state’s Department of Corrections conducted studies in 2003 and 2007 and found that there was no evidence that residential proximity to schools or parks affected recidivism rates, as people who offend tend to do so away from their own neighborhoods. The department’s research also found that pushing high-risk sex offenders to rural or suburban areas resulted in less access to services and supervision.

Studies in Iowa, Colorado, California, Florida and other states showed similar outcomes.

National studies indicate that more than 90 percent of child sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone who knows the child, oftentimes in the offender’s or victim’s home, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

“These sorts of restrictions, while well-intentioned, will only make our communities less safe by creating a false sense of security while doing nothing to reduce recidivism,” said Rachel Healy, director of communications for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine. “Rather than passing ineffective, fear-driven policies, we should be focused on proven solutions that actually keep our kids safe.”

Councilor Nelson Durgin, who was on the 2010 council, shared those same concerns during the April 17 committee meeting. He said he would be voting against the ordinance for a second time on Monday.

Maine municipalities have differed widely on the issue of sex offender residency restrictions.

Portland rejected an ordinance in early 2010, shortly before Bangor took the same step. The issue has not resurfaced there, according to city staff.

Westbrook had a more strict ordinance in place prior to 2010, before it had to dial its rules back after the restriction was challenged in court. The ordinance in its original form included a sex offender residency ban in commercial zones and other parts of the city, effectively prohibiting offenders from living most anywhere in Westbrook, according to police Capt. Tom Roth.

“It seems to be working for us now, but I think that’s because we have such high scrutiny on sex offenders,” Roth said.

Augusta police Chief Robert Gregoire said the capital city’s council passed a sex offender residency ordinance in January. He said the ordinance had solid community support. Gregoire said he didn’t think it would reduce the number of sex offenders in Augusta, which is home to 116 registered offenders.

“This may not have any measurable effect,” but it puts people at ease,” Gregoire said.

---

CA - Sexual offenses not a life sentence

Original Article

04/16/2013

By AMANDA ZIVE

Laws are always being made and revised when it comes to sexually-charged crimes. It’s a very difficult situation that many feel is preventable. The goal is an understandable one: protect the children.

The methods, on the other hand, are not.

Lumping together all felons, with sexually-charged crimes against them, is the first atrocity. Though classified as differing risk levels, the long term punishment for these crimes are the same. Sexual offenses range from child pornography, sexual battery and assault all the way to molestation and sexual annoyances.

The age of the offender, context of the offense, and even the severity of the action doesn’t deter the judicial system from giving these people lifetime punishments. Those who do properly register, even those with minor offenses, are barred from living in almost any busy city due to restrictions based on school, church and park locations for the rest of their lives.

But If the real aim is to protect children, than the studies done on offenders need to be taken into account.

According to the government-run Megan’s Law website, 90 percent of juvenile victims had known their assailant, while shockingly almost half the time it’s a family member doing the crime.

Barring all labeled a sexual deviants from living near schools is less helpful than banning family reunions for these people.

The reality is there is needed action. While a point can be made that sexually-charged crimes generally carry a lesser sentence than traditional violent crime, a gross stereotyping and lifelong damnation of all offenders isn’t going to help.

The attempt at crime prevention is valiant, but preventing criminals from moving on from their crimes hinders progression. If some of the efforts were shifted from punishment to rehabilitation, some convicts could successfully rejoin society as active members.

Unfortunately these people are rarely seen as mentally ill (which they often are) so they aren’t treated. Instead of identifying and treating the problem, we’ve resorted simply to removing it, seemingly forgetting that these felons are actually human beings.

A distasteful joke, or an inappropriate smack between coworkers could mean a lifetime of registering as a sex offender.

Clearly, something must be done to protect victims of this system: Those wrongfully accused, convicted of single offenses, or minor offenses must be offered forgiveness and a chance to rejoin a community.

In California, one is only awarded a life sentence in custody for murder or attempting it, or kidnapping with special circumstances like ransom. Yet, it is seen as just and fair to essentially imprison sex offenders for life by barring them from living near city buildings.

Sex offenders need to be treated the same as other criminals; a set amount of detention, a set amount of probation and the guarantee that with good behavior they can be forgiven.

Another flaw with these laws is how hard they are to enforce. With life terms, the registry of offenders is only ever going to grow.

Yet as of now, there is a constant increase of sex offenders not properly registering or reporting. When these members stop reporting, or remove GPS tracking anklets, they simply fall off of the grid entirely. With so many cases and such a heavy workload, officers often focus on the offenders they can locate.

Reasons for not reporting could include laziness, but it is a sign that the person is not willing to conform to what society demands of them for retribution. The punishment, if the assailant is located and detained, is generally a six-month sentence that is often reduced due to overcrowding; an empty threat and an unfit punishment.

Finally, these laws give a false sense of security to people with children who live near schools, parks or churches. Many are aware of these laws and feel safer knowing their neighbor isn’t a sexual deviant.

The truth is some offenders don’t report and statistics show offenders rarely abduct random children they don’t know.

These laws and restrictions, though they may be intended as prevention turn out to be nothing more than on-going punishments.

---

WI - Proposal would leave few places for some sex offenders

Original Article

04/15/2013

By CARA SPOTO

RACINE - An ordinance proposal that would prevent violent or child sex offenders placed in Racine from residing within 1,000 feet of locations where children spend time would make most areas of the city off-limits to such offenders.

A review by The Journal Times of a map drafted for the City Council’s Public Safety and Licensing Committee reveals only small pockets where such offenders could live.

Under the current version of the proposed ordinance, violent or child sex offenders locating to Racine would be banned from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, library, park, playground, swimming pool or house of worship.

If those restrictions were to be approved, the entire Downtown area would be off-limits to such offenders, as would many residential areas close to Downtown, save a small section of blocks south of Washington Avenue and 14th Street.

Most of the near north side would also be off-limits under the proposed ordinance, excluding a few small patches, like a small spot north of Shoreland Drive and east of Douglas Avenue. Much of the near south side also would be off-limits.

More areas would be available farther north and south, but not many. The map shows a few blocks available north of Romayne Avenue and a small area just south of the airport around Goold Avenue and Rapids Drive.

There also would be a handful of small areas available on the city’s far south and far west sides.

The City Council is slated to take up final consideration of the measure tonight at its 7 p.m. meeting at City Hall, 730 Washington Ave.

See Also:

• City Council approves sex offender zones

Read the rest of the article

---

FL - Marion Co. increasing sexual offender monitoring

Original Article

04/12/2013

MARION COUNTY - A trip to Ocala's Tuscawilla Park is supposed to be care-free, but Angela Emrick watches her young daughter's every move.

She's concerned about the 660 registered sex offenders and predators who live in Marion County. All of them are featured in a flyer published by the sheriff's office.

Now, detectives are being much more aggressive to find offenders who fail to report where they're living.

"That is a huge concern. I think about that a lot. Where they're at, if they're being tracked and monitored. I have a 4-year-old and it's a huge concern wherever we go," Emrick said.

Judge Cochran of the Marion County Sheriff's Office said the law is clear.

"If they're not doing what they're supposed to do, we're going to put them in jail," Cochran said.

Five have been put in jail since the sheriff turned up the heat April 1. Another four were put in jail Friday. The state wants the county sheriffs to visit each registered predator every three months and every offender once a year.

"Well, here at the Marion County Sheriff's Office we're going way beyond that. If it's a predator, we're knocking on their door once every 30 days," Cochran said.

Offenders will get visits every 90 days, the Sheriff’s Office said.

Moms at the park approve.

"It's important for them to be documented and verified. That's important," parent Stephanie Fire-Smith said.

"Someone's got to do it to keep us safe and our children safe. It's great that he's taking the initiative to do more," Emrick said.

---

CA - Seeking smarter rules for sex offenders

Janice Bellucci

Original Article

04/11/2013

By Gale Holland

Janice Bellucci of Reform Sex Offender Laws believes offenders should go to prison. But after they get out, she wants them to have a chance to lead stable lives.

Janice Bellucci is a mother of two, the wife of a pastor and a former Girl Scout leader active in volunteer work.

She lives in a gated community an hour's drive north of Santa Barbara, with needlepoint pillows on the sofa and a vegetable garden in the backyard. She is also the public face of an organization advocating for the closest thing to an untouchable caste in our society: California's 88,000 registered sex offenders.

A former aerospace lawyer, Bellucci is the president of the California chapter of Reform Sex Offender Laws, a national group of offenders, family members, psychologists and attorneys registered as a nonprofit.

The California branch holds meetings every other month, closed to the media, to discuss offenders' rights and legal actions she is taking. Bellucci believes sex offenders should go to prison for their crimes. Her target is the crazy quilt of state and local laws regulating their conduct after they get out.

These laws bar offenders from moving near parks and schools, leaving them with comparatively few places to live. Almost all of San Francisco, and most of San Diego, is off-limits, she says. Some ordinances forbid offenders to even visit county parks and beaches.

Bellucci also wants to give some sex offenders a way off the registry. California is one of four states where sex offenders register for life, regardless of the seriousness of their crimes.

Bellucci has brought a professional sheen to the sex offenders' fight, writing talking-point memos, testifying before agencies and taking cities to court. And she's had some success: After she sued, a court stopped Simi Valley from requiring sex offenders to post signs on their front doors warning trick-or-treaters away on Halloween.

She casts her cause as a civil rights movement. During a conversation at her home, Bellucci referred to those on the list as "registrants" rather than sex offenders, and she quoted Gandhi and the Constitution.

"People don't like to hear me say it, but it's like how the Jews were treated in Nazi Germany," she said. "First they were told they were different, then they ended up in concentration camps."

No doubt this preposterous characterization is objectionable. Sex offenders are shunned for their conduct, not their status. And their conduct is often unspeakable.

But even a state advisory board acknowledges that post-release restrictions on sex offenders have gone too far. In an August 2011 report, the California Sex Offender Management Board said that one-third of the state's registered sex offenders are homeless, partly because of the housing limits.

There is no evidence that residence limits make children safer, the report said. "To the contrary, the evidence strongly suggests that residence restrictions are likely to have the unintended effect of increasing the likelihood of sexual re-offense," the report went on.

A particularly boneheaded example of overkill is the pocket park in Harbor Gateway. The park is being built not to serve families but to drive registered sex offenders out of a nearby apartment building, my colleague Angel Jennings reported.

I have no doubt Harbor Gateway needs a park. But what kind of a society builds parks not for children, but to chase sex offenders away?

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza put the issue on hold in March by ordering officials to stop enforcing restrictions on how close sex offenders can live to parks or schools. Bellucci argues the limits are unconstitutional, and Espinoza, in an earlier ruling, agreed.

Bellucci, 61, doesn't have a sex offender in the family, although she currently represents some in civil challenges. She came to the cause by chance. The man who installed her water purifier wrote a book about his years on the registry. She read it and was aghast.

The man, [name withheld], had molested a child more than 30 years earlier, when he was a raging alcoholic, Bellucci said. [name withheld] went on to build a business and become a civic activist. He was physically attacked by a vigilante who found his name and address on the registry, she said.

His case helped convince her that lifetime registration was wrong. Bellucci has stories about Everymen who wind up on the registry: the "Romeo and Juliet" cases of two teens, one underage, in a sexual relationship; the guy who urinates behind a bar or moons a crowd. Nobody seems to know how many fit this category.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has proposed a three-tiered registry that would enable lower-level offenders with otherwise clean records to get off in 10 to 20 years. Bellucci is lobbying for its passage.

"Sex offenders come from all walks of life," she said. "Some grew up in the ghetto, some grew up in Beverly Hills. They're like everybody else."

Really? I don't think so. Some undoubtedly made mistakes, but others are hardened offenders whom law enforcement would do well to track and monitor.

Just this week, [name withheld], 58, a registered sex offender, was arrested on suspicion of the home-invasion killing of an elderly San Bernardino woman. [name withheld]'  previous conviction was for sodomizing a child under age 14.

I don't see the purpose of the public registry. For this story, I went on the Megan's Law website for the first time and found several sex offenders in my neighborhood. It made my skin crawl, but is it useful to know exactly where they are or what they did? I am well aware sex offenders are in our midst, and I don't need the details to protect myself and my children.

Bellucci is convinced sex offenders can be rehabilitated. She cited a study of 2008 data by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation showing than of those who returned to prison, about 2% had committed another sex offense. Banishing them from normal society makes them more likely to repeat their crimes, she believes.

"We all do so much better when we have stability," Bellucci said. "It's ridiculous all the challenges that get thrown in front of sex offenders."

But we've all heard of the priests, Boy Scout leaders and teachers who molested multiple children before finally getting caught. The state corrections department acknowledges it can say with only 75% accuracy who is likely to commit a sex offense again, although it hopes to increase the odds with better assessments.

Bellucci is undeterred.

"The people I'm focused on already paid their debt to society," she said. "All I want for them is peace."

---

WI - Sex offender buffer zone proposal heads to council

Original Article

04/09/2013

By CARA SPOTO

RACINE - An ordinance proposal that would prevent violent or child sex offenders placed in Racine from residing within 1,000 feet of locations where children spend time is on its way to the City Council, but not before an item regarding appeals gets another look.

Meeting Monday night at City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., the Public Safety and Licensing Committee voted 3-0 to recommend that the council approve the ordinance with the understanding that the current draft would receive some adjustments before being considered by the council.

Committee members said they were comfortable with the key elements of the measure, which proposes that sex offenders located to Racine be banned from residing within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, library, park, playground, swimming pool or house of worship. However, members had lingering questions about certain definitions and the measure’s proposed appeals process.

In its current form, the proposed ordinance states that a sex offender looking to be exempted from the 1,000-foot residence requirements could make an appeal to the Public Safety and Licensing Committee.

Alderman Sandy Weidner, who is not a member of the committee, said aldermen should consider establishing a separate body to hear appeals.

“I don’t know that all the members that would be appointed to the (Public Safety and Licensing Committee) would even want to have that onus on their shoulders,” she said. “I think that’s a lot to ask.”

Some of the questions the committee members had were, in part, raised by Robert Peterson, an attorney for convicted sex offender [name withheld], who was recently released to Racine.

Peterson, who spoke during the public hearing before the meeting, presented data that he said shows restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live have almost no effect on recidivism.

“Residence requirements of 1,000 feet, 2,000 feet, statistically will do nothing to increase the safety of the community,” Peterson said.

[name withheld]’s former victim also spoke during the sparsely attended hearing. The victim, whose name The Journal Times is not releasing, implored the committee to support the measure. Committee member and outgoing alderman Molly Hall began working on the proposal earlier this year after [name withheld] was nearly relocated within blocks of the victim’s West Racine residence.

“This ordinance should have been in effect a long time ago,” the victim said. “I am strongly asking you to take this ordinance into consideration so other people don’t have to go through what I have been through in the last three and a half months.”

Read the rest of the story here

---

MA - Audit finds day cares near sex offenders gone

Original Article

04/02/2013

By Allison Thomasseau

BOSTON - While a state audit of day-care centers found that four in North Central Massachusetts shared addresses with known sex offenders, only one of the matches presented a threat to children or violated state law.
- So instead of the fear mongering statistics of 119 by Suzanne Bump, only 1 presented a threat! And we understand, this is just one article disputing this fact, but if more media would do their jobs, maybe others would show the same thing?

Matches at 105 Plymouth St., Fitchburg, and 740 Central St., Leominster, were for day care programs that closed in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

A match in Gardner was for a center that shared an address with Mount Wachusett Community College where a sex offender worked or attended school. The center is located in a separate, self-contained building.

A final match, at 21 Summer St., Leominster, was for a day care center that moved to a new location without informing authorities. The license for that center has been revoked.

State Auditor Suzanne Bump's report (PDF), which was released last Wednesday, found a total of 119 matches between the addresses of sex offenders and the 10,528 registered day care centers in the state.

Christopher Thompson, a spokesman for Bump, said the study was part of a routine audit of the Department of Early Education and Care. He said the department was not required to do the cross checking.

"It was not required for EEC to perform sex offender registry checks. That was our initial finding," said Thompson. "We found that out, so we did the check ourselves."

Carmel Sullivan, a spokeswoman for the Department of Early Education and Care, wrote in an email that the department revoked the license of a Leominster day-care operation run by Robin Wiiniaka-Machado, formerly of 21 Summer St., after it was determined she had moved from the address on her license without informing the department, a violation of a requirement of day care providers.

Sullivan wrote that the department was unable to contact Wiiniaka-Machado before it revoked her childcare license. The sex offender who matched Wiiniaka-Machado's day care address lived in a different unit at that address.

The department's attempts to find contact information for Wiiniaka-Machado were unsuccessful.

The auditor turned over the matches to the early-education department, which investigated each case, Thompson said. In addition to Wiiniaka-Machado, three other childcare providers lost licenses: Ana Julia Minaya, of Methuen, and Diane Martin and Carmen Martinez, both of Springfield.

The report also found that of 152 randomly selected child-care workers, 15 had expired background checks. None of these workers were local.

Thomas Weber, acting early-education commissioner, said last week that the department would begin to conduct routine crosschecks of sex-offender and child-care addresses.

There is no state law preventing a sex offender from living near a day-care center. But some cities, including Fitchburg and Leominster, have passed city ordinances banning sex offenders from living 1,000 to 1,200 feet from schools, parks, or childcare centers.

Lt. Michael Goldman, of the Leominster Police Department, said police do not monitor whether sex offenders are living at the same address as a day-care center.
- So are they not checking the addresses when an offender registers?

"Our only involvement with sex offenders is registration or violations while on probation or parole," Goldman said.

However, all directors of operating area day cares that turned up in the state audit said they were aware that sex offenders lived or worked nearby.

"The problem is addressed as long as you put in the safety precautions," said Patti MacGillivray, owner and director of Pattikakes' A Place to Grow in Tewksbury, which is on the Tewksbury State Hospital campus.

MacGillivray said Pattikakes' keeps the doors locked. When the staff and children leave the center, the staff members bring two cellphones with them.

"If the staff ever see something that is suspicious, they go to the campus police," she said.

Local activists have responded to the audit by asking for more regulations against sex offenders and better access to information about sex offenders.

"We need to use the public information that's available, but that comes down on the Legislature to make more information accessible," said Laurie Myers, founder of Community Voices, which advocates for child protection and safety.

Information about Level 3 sex offenders, who are classified as high risk, is available online, but Myers said more information about Level 1 and Level 2 offenders should also be available.

"We can't wait for tragedy to act," Myers said. "We need to be proactive in protecting children and unfortunately we don't see that."
- You should always take precautions to protect those you are in charge of watching, even if the registry did not exist at all!

---

Overcoming housing barriers for sex offenders

Original Article

04/02/2013

By Robert Carter

Sex offenders remain some of the most difficult to place in the labor market

Release into the community from a correctional setting is a daily struggle, even when you have only been incarcerated for a short period. Many of the responsibilities and basic needs that were met while in the community are often much harder to gain back with a criminal background.

Policies regarding employment and housing of ex-convicts vary from state to state. There are varying perceptions in the philosophy of continued punishment, or allowing for those barriers to be overcome.

In addressing the constant and growing problem of the parolee population in terms of employment and housing, sex offenders remain some of the most difficult to place in the labor market. Finding appropriate and suitable housing in terms of their parole stipulations and landlord’s willingness to rent to current and prior felons remain some of the key issues.

Meeting parole requirements and other issues

Sex offenders often have additional parole stipulations, which make it even more difficult for them to find stable housing. Even if stable housing is found, it’s most likely found in a dangerous or crime-infested neighborhood, decreasing their chances for success in the community. Housing for sex offenders should be utilized through Prisoner Re-entry programs; the community as a whole needs to work with these organizations.

Typically, private landlords and transitional housing programs can alleviate the pressure on sex offenders in finding more stable housing. Also, working with parole agents who supervise these sex offenders can help establish an acceptable or felony-friendly housing list, which should be maintained by the parole agent, the landlords, or the non-profit organizations who provide the housing services.

Addressing parole stipulations is also important in understanding what barriers exist in sex offenders search for suitable housing. Typically, sex offenders are required to register at their local police and/or sheriff’s department quarterly and to register any new addresses, cars, places of employment, email addresses, and phone numbers.

This population also can only reside within a certain amount of feet from a school or playground. What I have seen is a sex offender must not reside with 1,000 – 2,000 feet of any school or playground.

Parole agents are the ones responsible for the housing placement of sex offenders and if proper housing is not located, they must remain in jail as is it against the law for them not to have an address. Homeless shelters now have been the main focus in the media due to varying concerns that sex offenders are staying their temporarily.
- This is not the case for many states and keeping them in jail beyond their sentence is wrong!  Just because politicians pass insane laws that make it almost impossible for an ex-sex offender to find a place to live or work, doesn't mean you can just keep them locked up, or it should mean that.

Some of these homeless shelters are within the 1,000 – 2,000 foot range of schools and parks set forth by most parole conditions amongst the sex offender population, however some judges have managed to set forth precedence allowing them to stay at the shelters.

A final issue with the residing within a school zone or park rule is that some schools or parks may even be closed, thus creating a need for exceptions to the rule to be made. If schools and parks are closed and there is no activity in the area from minors or families, why should this prevent them from residing within that area?

Working together to find solutions

It’s apparent after reading this article that the community as a whole needs to work together to provide housing resources to sex offenders re-entering the community.

Non-profit organizations, parole agents, private landlords, and church organizations are examples of community members that can help alleviate the pressures of those entering the community seeking stable and affordable housing.

Prisoner Re-entry programs in general need to address this concern regarding sex offenders as this will become a growing problem, especially since most of them will be released in the near future after serving a long sentence.

---