Original Article
05/20/2013
ORLANDO - City Council has unanimously passed a new ordinance to keep registered sex offenders even farther away from children.
Under the new ordinance, sex offenders living within the Orlando city limits may not live within 1,500 feet of a school, park, playground or daycare. The previous limit was 1,000 feet.
However, the ordinance only applies to sex offenders whose victims were under the age of 16.
Opponents of the law said they believe it will push more sex offenders into being homeless (Video, More videos).
"Then, they are just going to fall of the grid. Then we're not going to know where they're at," argued Julio Rodriguez with Offender Housing, a local real estate company specializing in finding housing for sex offenders. "Right now, by having all these people live in one area, it's easier for the Sheriff's Office, or probation and parole to come and check on them in one area where they're all living together."
"You can't totally prohibit these individuals from living in your city," said Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer. "So, we set what we thought was an appropriate boundary that could with stand any constitutional challenges."
Mayor Dyer said the city will re-evaluate the effectiveness of the ordinance within the next 12 months.
See Also:
- Search:
- Site
- ACLU
- Legislature
- Other
Search this site only:
Search all ACLU sites:
Search all state legislatures:
Search other related sites, or Google:
| Recommended: | State News: |
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label Residency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Residency. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
WA - Puyallup-Led Bill to Restrict Sex Offender Housing Signed into Law
Labels: Clustering , Housing , Residency , Washington
Original Article
05/17/2013
By Lauren Padgett
Residents of the 25th Legislative District who are concerned about community and neighborhood safety can breathe a bit easier now. That’s because Gov. Jay Inslee has signed Sen. Bruce Dammeier’s bill to address concerns about the state housing-voucher program for offenders.
Many people from Puyallup, Dammeier’s district, were present for Thursday’s signing of Senate Bill 5105 (PDF). They included Julie Door, a citizen lobbyist who became integral to the discussion that produced the new law, utilizing the Facebook page Shaw ComeTogether.
“While this measure addresses major concerns for the people of my district, it will also positively affect other neighborhoods and communities all across the state,” said Dammeier, R-Puyallup. “This bill increases transparency and clearly outlines conditions to which the state Department of Corrections must adhere when issuing housing vouchers.”
Senate Bill 5105 states that when a sex offender is released into the public, there must be an approved plan that outlines living arrangements prior to release. If the release plan is not approved, they could be denied residency and might be transitioned through another jail program.
Rental vouchers, which help offenders transition back into society, are only to be given for the first three months after their release.
The Department of Corrections will also maintain an approved list of halfway houses and voucher recipients, the bill states. If more than two offenders live in the same place, those housing vouchers will only be eligible if the housing situation has been approved to handle the larger volume of high-risk occupants.
The department will consider the location of the house and neighborhood in their decision of whether or not a residence is eligible for the housing voucher program. Procedures will be adopted that prevent a cluster of "halfway houses" in any given town.
When a property becomes considered for a halfway house, law enforcement authorities will be notified and community impact statements will be accepted and considered during the application process.
In situations where four to eight offenders are eligible to live together (or greater number than permitted by local code), then the DOC must provide transitional support that verifies the offender is participating in counseling, sex offender treatment and other programs that develop positive living.
These new measures and push for the Senate bill started last year, when Puyallup’s Shaw Road neighborhood became a possible location for a halfway house for newly-released offenders.
It's truly a relief to the community, Door posted on Facebook.
"This was the culmination of an AMAZING community effort," Shaw ComeTogether posted. "Puyallup citizens should be proud of the effort they put forth to keep our communities safe!"
05/17/2013
By Lauren Padgett
Residents of the 25th Legislative District who are concerned about community and neighborhood safety can breathe a bit easier now. That’s because Gov. Jay Inslee has signed Sen. Bruce Dammeier’s bill to address concerns about the state housing-voucher program for offenders.
Many people from Puyallup, Dammeier’s district, were present for Thursday’s signing of Senate Bill 5105 (PDF). They included Julie Door, a citizen lobbyist who became integral to the discussion that produced the new law, utilizing the Facebook page Shaw ComeTogether.
“While this measure addresses major concerns for the people of my district, it will also positively affect other neighborhoods and communities all across the state,” said Dammeier, R-Puyallup. “This bill increases transparency and clearly outlines conditions to which the state Department of Corrections must adhere when issuing housing vouchers.”
Senate Bill 5105 states that when a sex offender is released into the public, there must be an approved plan that outlines living arrangements prior to release. If the release plan is not approved, they could be denied residency and might be transitioned through another jail program.
Rental vouchers, which help offenders transition back into society, are only to be given for the first three months after their release.
The Department of Corrections will also maintain an approved list of halfway houses and voucher recipients, the bill states. If more than two offenders live in the same place, those housing vouchers will only be eligible if the housing situation has been approved to handle the larger volume of high-risk occupants.
The department will consider the location of the house and neighborhood in their decision of whether or not a residence is eligible for the housing voucher program. Procedures will be adopted that prevent a cluster of "halfway houses" in any given town.
When a property becomes considered for a halfway house, law enforcement authorities will be notified and community impact statements will be accepted and considered during the application process.
In situations where four to eight offenders are eligible to live together (or greater number than permitted by local code), then the DOC must provide transitional support that verifies the offender is participating in counseling, sex offender treatment and other programs that develop positive living.
These new measures and push for the Senate bill started last year, when Puyallup’s Shaw Road neighborhood became a possible location for a halfway house for newly-released offenders.
It's truly a relief to the community, Door posted on Facebook.
"This was the culmination of an AMAZING community effort," Shaw ComeTogether posted. "Puyallup citizens should be proud of the effort they put forth to keep our communities safe!"
Friday, May 17, 2013
NH - Homeless sex offenders present challenge to police
Labels: Homeless , Housing , NewHampshire , Residency
Original Article
05/15/2013
Some address information for offenders not specific
CONCORD - Convicted sex offenders are required to keep police informed of their whereabouts, but when sex offenders are homeless, police often need to take extra steps to keep track of them.
- Our question would be, why are they homeless in the first place? Is it because of the online registry and residency laws perhaps? We suspect that is the reason. So if you want to eliminate the problem, repeal the online registry and residency laws.
[name withheld] is a convicted sex offender who's required by law to verify his address at least twice a year. On the registry, his address is listed simply as a blue and white tent.
"If they're homeless, if they're living in a certain area, we ask them to put where they're living," said Detective Lt. Timothy O'Malley. "If they live in a vicinity near a railroad track on the south end in a tent, then we would put that on the form."
But [name withheld]'s information didn't contain any specific area. Scanning the list, News 9 found several similar situations. In Concord, sex offenders were listed as living in a blue and black tent, in a van and in a car.
In Manchester, the east side and downtown parks were listed as addresses, but they didn't contain any more specific descriptions. That's a concern for victims.
"When it comes to sex offenders, one of the things from a victim's perspective is knowing where they are, and it makes it much more likely that the victims are able to go on with their lives, knowing that somebody is monitoring that," said Jill Rockey of the Crisis Center of Central New Hampshire.
The city of Concord has a designated detective who keeps track of offenders.
"The detective generates a list of offenders, a random list, every week, and patrol officers will go out and verify the addresses of the offenders, and that way, it's a proactive measure to make sure the offenders are living where they say they are living," O'Malley said.
Police said that through that process, they know where the homeless offenders are staying. If they fail to register, a warrant is issued that also shows up on the registry.
05/15/2013
Some address information for offenders not specific
CONCORD - Convicted sex offenders are required to keep police informed of their whereabouts, but when sex offenders are homeless, police often need to take extra steps to keep track of them.
- Our question would be, why are they homeless in the first place? Is it because of the online registry and residency laws perhaps? We suspect that is the reason. So if you want to eliminate the problem, repeal the online registry and residency laws.
[name withheld] is a convicted sex offender who's required by law to verify his address at least twice a year. On the registry, his address is listed simply as a blue and white tent.
"If they're homeless, if they're living in a certain area, we ask them to put where they're living," said Detective Lt. Timothy O'Malley. "If they live in a vicinity near a railroad track on the south end in a tent, then we would put that on the form."
But [name withheld]'s information didn't contain any specific area. Scanning the list, News 9 found several similar situations. In Concord, sex offenders were listed as living in a blue and black tent, in a van and in a car.
In Manchester, the east side and downtown parks were listed as addresses, but they didn't contain any more specific descriptions. That's a concern for victims.
"When it comes to sex offenders, one of the things from a victim's perspective is knowing where they are, and it makes it much more likely that the victims are able to go on with their lives, knowing that somebody is monitoring that," said Jill Rockey of the Crisis Center of Central New Hampshire.
The city of Concord has a designated detective who keeps track of offenders.
"The detective generates a list of offenders, a random list, every week, and patrol officers will go out and verify the addresses of the offenders, and that way, it's a proactive measure to make sure the offenders are living where they say they are living," O'Malley said.
Police said that through that process, they know where the homeless offenders are staying. If they fail to register, a warrant is issued that also shows up on the registry.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
CA - Restrictive Residency Rules and the Illusion of Public Safety
Labels: California , Clustering , DayCare , Homeless , Housing , Park , Playground , Residency , UnderBridge
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
NY - Counties struggle with homeless sex offenders
Labels: DayCare , Homeless , Housing , MassHysteria , NewYork , Park , Playground , Residency , School
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.
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.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
FL - Orlando wants to distance sex offenders even farther from schools
Original Article
05/01/2013
ORLANDO - Channel 9 has learned Orlando City Council plans to vote on an ordinance that will toughen sex offender residency restrictions with an ordinance that is tougher than the state's current law.
Florida law says some sex offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools, but the city of Orlando wants to extend that even further to 1,500 feet.
"When I got out of prison, I came right straight here to Orlando," said convicted sexual predator [name withheld].
In November, [name withheld] told Channel 9 he moved to Orlando because the city didn't have tough restrictions.
Sybil Riddle lives in the Rock Lake community close to an elementary school. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement website shows her home is surrounded by sex offenders.
Right now, sex offenders in Orlando can live within 1,000-feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and day cares. But if the City Council ordinance passes, sex offender regulations will be pushed back an additional 500 feet.
A spokesperson for the city said there are currently 475 sex offenders living within city limits. If the ordinance passes, the residency restriction will only apply to people whose victims are under 16 and sex offenders will not have to move away from their present homes.
"Existing sex offenders, under our current state statute and under our proposed ordinance, are grandfathered," said Orlando Assistant City Attorney Kyle Shephard. "In other words, they can't be forced to move under state law, but they can't move and come back."
But that's not good enough for Riddle.
"We just need to move them out or move them further away, for the school children at least," she said.
The issue will be discussed and voted for at City Hall on Monday. If it passes, the ordinance could take effect as early as July 1.
05/01/2013
ORLANDO - Channel 9 has learned Orlando City Council plans to vote on an ordinance that will toughen sex offender residency restrictions with an ordinance that is tougher than the state's current law.
Florida law says some sex offenders can't live within 1,000 feet of schools, but the city of Orlando wants to extend that even further to 1,500 feet.
"When I got out of prison, I came right straight here to Orlando," said convicted sexual predator [name withheld].
In November, [name withheld] told Channel 9 he moved to Orlando because the city didn't have tough restrictions.
Sybil Riddle lives in the Rock Lake community close to an elementary school. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement website shows her home is surrounded by sex offenders.
Right now, sex offenders in Orlando can live within 1,000-feet of schools, parks, playgrounds and day cares. But if the City Council ordinance passes, sex offender regulations will be pushed back an additional 500 feet.
A spokesperson for the city said there are currently 475 sex offenders living within city limits. If the ordinance passes, the residency restriction will only apply to people whose victims are under 16 and sex offenders will not have to move away from their present homes.
"Existing sex offenders, under our current state statute and under our proposed ordinance, are grandfathered," said Orlando Assistant City Attorney Kyle Shephard. "In other words, they can't be forced to move under state law, but they can't move and come back."
But that's not good enough for Riddle.
"We just need to move them out or move them further away, for the school children at least," she said.
The issue will be discussed and voted for at City Hall on Monday. If it passes, the ordinance could take effect as early as July 1.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
DC - US: More Harm Than Good (Human Rights Watch)
Labels: CrimeVigilante , Harassment , HumanRightsWatch , OffenderChild , Park , Playground , Residency , RomeoAndJuliet , School , Study , Video , WashingtonDC
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
NY - Advocate Thinks Reporter Too Harsh on Sex Offenders
Labels: Housing , MassHysteria , NewYork , Opinion , Residency , School , ShanaRowan , USAFair
![]() |
| Shana Rowan |
04/30/2013
By Shana Rowan (Blog, Website)
As a registry reform advocate and fiance to a registrant whose crime was committed as a minor, I felt compelled to respond to the numerous sex offender-related issues brought up in several recent articles.
Buffalo/Niagara is no different than other urban areas in our country in terms of high concentrations of registered sex offenders. The public’s mentality towards those on the registry often makes it difficult for those convicted of sex crimes to find housing, and often impossible when municipalities enact residency restrictions. Schools and other “child oriented places” are usually centrally located, so finding housing more than 1,000 feet from such facilities is often not possible. Former sex offenders and their families often find themselves with little choice but to live in poorer, higher-crime neighborhoods.
A 2012 study by Dr. Jill Levenson (studies), one of the leading authorities on sex offender recidivism, found that residency restrictions do not reduce child sexual abuse and several previous studies corroborate her findings. Lack of stable housing and employment actually increases the likelihood of recidivism, making such restrictions counter-productive at best. Empirical research on sex crime reveals that children are overwhelmingly victimized by people they know, family members, friends, coaches, clergy, etc., not a stranger. Even the toughest laws directed at registrants only apply to those who have already been caught and since recidivism is so low, the impact of these laws is minimal.
It’s possible to feel anger at sex abuse and support harsh punishment of perpetrators, while recognizing the importance of fact-based policies. The unfortunate fact is that putting a stop to sex crime is far more complicated than perpetuating sex offender hysteria. The media plays a large role in communicating such information to the public, hopefully, the Niagara Falls Reporter will do this from now on.
Learn the truth at www.usafair.org/studies.
Shana Rowan is executive director of USA Fair, Inc. (USA Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry).
Saturday, April 27, 2013
WI - Sturtevant Considering Sex Offender Ordinance
Labels: Church , CivilCommitment , Park , Playground , Residency , School , Wisconsin
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:
For those not under supervised release but required to register with the Department of Corrections' sex offender registry, they must live:
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.
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.
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
Labels: NewYork , Park , Playground , Residency , School
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.
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.
Friday, April 26, 2013
CA - Many sex offenders end up on the streets
Original Article
04/25/2013
By Keli Moore
Close to two weeks after [name withheld], a sexually violent predator, was released from prison as a transient into Santa Barbara County, numerous questions have surfaced surrounding safety issues at homeless services.
There are screening processes to stay at overnight shelters in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, but anyone can go to Prado Day Center in San Luis Obispo to get a hot meal.
"If you apply for a place to live you have to tell them that you're a registered sex offender. It makes it really difficult," said a local man who wants to remain anonymous. He has been out of prison for almost two years and since then, the streets of San Luis Obispo have been his home.
"We can get help through the county health as far as just getting some medical help and stuff like that, but as far as food, shelter, clothing, you have to pretty much find it on your own," he said.
What he doesn't realize is there are some options.
"During the lunch time at Prado for the People's Kitchen, they are allowed to just get in the lunch line, eat their plate of food, and leave the facility with no questions asked," said Dee Torres, who is the homeless services coordinator for CAPSLO.
According to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office, there are 470 registered sex offenders in the county and 52 of them are transients. This raises concern for families with kids who use local homeless services.
"There's a six to eight page intake form that we complete with each individual and some other basic questions that we ask right when they come through the door," said Torres.
But the screening process is not fool proof.
"There have been a few cases where we have found out after the fact that somebody wasn't registered on the database and they didn't disclose," said Torres.
Although there are screening processes in place, a kid could still be exposed to a sex offender.
Transients who are registered sex offenders are required by law to check in with the closest law enforcement agency every 30 days, and if they are still on parole, they are required to wear a GPS device.
04/25/2013
By Keli Moore
Close to two weeks after [name withheld], a sexually violent predator, was released from prison as a transient into Santa Barbara County, numerous questions have surfaced surrounding safety issues at homeless services.
There are screening processes to stay at overnight shelters in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties, but anyone can go to Prado Day Center in San Luis Obispo to get a hot meal.
"If you apply for a place to live you have to tell them that you're a registered sex offender. It makes it really difficult," said a local man who wants to remain anonymous. He has been out of prison for almost two years and since then, the streets of San Luis Obispo have been his home.
"We can get help through the county health as far as just getting some medical help and stuff like that, but as far as food, shelter, clothing, you have to pretty much find it on your own," he said.
What he doesn't realize is there are some options.
"During the lunch time at Prado for the People's Kitchen, they are allowed to just get in the lunch line, eat their plate of food, and leave the facility with no questions asked," said Dee Torres, who is the homeless services coordinator for CAPSLO.
According to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office, there are 470 registered sex offenders in the county and 52 of them are transients. This raises concern for families with kids who use local homeless services.
"There's a six to eight page intake form that we complete with each individual and some other basic questions that we ask right when they come through the door," said Torres.
But the screening process is not fool proof.
"There have been a few cases where we have found out after the fact that somebody wasn't registered on the database and they didn't disclose," said Torres.
Although there are screening processes in place, a kid could still be exposed to a sex offender.
Transients who are registered sex offenders are required by law to check in with the closest law enforcement agency every 30 days, and if they are still on parole, they are required to wear a GPS device.
FL - Pocket parks aren't made for children: they're designed for sex offenders
Labels: 18YearsOld , DayCare , Florida , OffenderChild , OffenderMale , Park , Residency , RomeoAndJuliet , School , Video
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."
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."
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
NY - County searches for options for homeless sex offenders
Original Article
You want options? Really? If so, then examine the facts! The facts that the online registry prevents many from getting jobs, and employment, therefore they become homeless. Take the registry offline and eliminate the residency restrictions, which have been proven to not work, and most of the problem will have been solved.
04/24/2013
UTICA - Oneida County is searching for possible alternatives to housing homeless convicted sex offenders and violent felons in local motels.
“We are dealing with what’s in front of us,” said County Executive Anthony Picente. “That is a homeless population that has mixed within it ex-offenders that run the gamut of what the offense was, as well as people who have just run into a streak of bad luck.”
The issue arose after the O-D reported that within a two-week period in February, eight Level 2 or Level 3 sex offenders had been placed by the county Social Services Department in motels on Genesee Street in North Utica.
By law, counties are required to find housing for anyone who requests the assistance. If a homeless person is an active addict, a convicted sex offender or has a violent felony conviction, however, the local shelters won’t take them.
One possible alternative, Picente said, is having an outside agency operate a shelter.
- Even if you do this, there will always be people complaining about ex-sex offenders in their back yards.
“We are looking at all options to try and alleviate the situation,” he said. “But there may not be a perfect option out there that can satisfy everyone.”
- You will never please everyone!
Picente said homeless sex offenders are a particularly difficult group to find housing for because of local laws that prevent them from living near schools and certain other locations.
- Exactly, so take the registry offline and eliminate the residency laws, then most of the problem goes a way.
County Attorney Greg Amoroso said hotels and motels are on the list of locations where the state allows counties to place homeless individuals. The temporary housing also must be close to the services they need to get back on their feet, under the law, Amoroso said.
In March, an average of 23 homeless people per day was housed in area motels or hotels and 67 in shelters. Whether any of those individuals had criminal or addiction issues could not determined.
Sometimes, people who do not have those issues also are placed in the motels because of lack of available space in the shelters, county Social Services Commissioner Lucille Soldato said.
County Legislator Emil Paparella represents North Utica and was shocked to find that sex offenders were being housed in motels in his district.
- Why does it shock them? Or are they just pretending to be ignorant of this?
He said his son and grandchildren have stayed in those motels because of their low prices, but they won’t be doing it again unless things change.
He’s afraid others will do the same.
“Right now, we are trying to build Utica up,” Paparella said. “If we start getting a reputation that we are accepting homeless sex offenders, it’s not going to look good for the city.”
In Oneida County, the only shelters that take men are the Rescue Missions in Utica and Rome. Officials there did not return calls for comment.
County Social Services staff is barred by law from asking specific questions about a homeless person’s criminal record because it is not legally relevant to eligibility for county services, including housing. The staff can list the criteria set out by the shelters and ask the individual if they meet them, but the individual may opt not to specify which of the criteria the fail to meet.
- So basically, if you are an ex-felon, they cannot ask about your background, but if you are on the sex offender registry, sorry, we cannot help?
The shelters also ask such questions and might do blood tests to determine if a person is using drugs, she said.
Patricia Witt, executive director of Emmaus House, a shelter for homeless women and children, said her screening process is designed to protect the people her organization serves.
“Our funders and supporters created these shelters for specific purposes,” Witt said, "listing domestic violence, addiction recovery or specific groups such as women.”
You want options? Really? If so, then examine the facts! The facts that the online registry prevents many from getting jobs, and employment, therefore they become homeless. Take the registry offline and eliminate the residency restrictions, which have been proven to not work, and most of the problem will have been solved.
04/24/2013
UTICA - Oneida County is searching for possible alternatives to housing homeless convicted sex offenders and violent felons in local motels.
“We are dealing with what’s in front of us,” said County Executive Anthony Picente. “That is a homeless population that has mixed within it ex-offenders that run the gamut of what the offense was, as well as people who have just run into a streak of bad luck.”
The issue arose after the O-D reported that within a two-week period in February, eight Level 2 or Level 3 sex offenders had been placed by the county Social Services Department in motels on Genesee Street in North Utica.
By law, counties are required to find housing for anyone who requests the assistance. If a homeless person is an active addict, a convicted sex offender or has a violent felony conviction, however, the local shelters won’t take them.
One possible alternative, Picente said, is having an outside agency operate a shelter.
- Even if you do this, there will always be people complaining about ex-sex offenders in their back yards.
“We are looking at all options to try and alleviate the situation,” he said. “But there may not be a perfect option out there that can satisfy everyone.”
- You will never please everyone!
Picente said homeless sex offenders are a particularly difficult group to find housing for because of local laws that prevent them from living near schools and certain other locations.
- Exactly, so take the registry offline and eliminate the residency laws, then most of the problem goes a way.
County Attorney Greg Amoroso said hotels and motels are on the list of locations where the state allows counties to place homeless individuals. The temporary housing also must be close to the services they need to get back on their feet, under the law, Amoroso said.
The problem
Like the shelters, motels can refuse certain occupants, but places such as Scottish Inn, Happy Journey and Super 8 motels along North Genesee Street have accepted sex offenders in need of housing, county officials said. Under the law, the motels are not told the specific backgrounds, of the individuals they are housing.In March, an average of 23 homeless people per day was housed in area motels or hotels and 67 in shelters. Whether any of those individuals had criminal or addiction issues could not determined.
Sometimes, people who do not have those issues also are placed in the motels because of lack of available space in the shelters, county Social Services Commissioner Lucille Soldato said.
County Legislator Emil Paparella represents North Utica and was shocked to find that sex offenders were being housed in motels in his district.
- Why does it shock them? Or are they just pretending to be ignorant of this?
He said his son and grandchildren have stayed in those motels because of their low prices, but they won’t be doing it again unless things change.
He’s afraid others will do the same.
“Right now, we are trying to build Utica up,” Paparella said. “If we start getting a reputation that we are accepting homeless sex offenders, it’s not going to look good for the city.”
Shelters crowded
Shelters cost the county between $30 and $35 per day for adults, while the motels cost about $50 a day. About $255,000 was spent by the county on such placements in 2012.In Oneida County, the only shelters that take men are the Rescue Missions in Utica and Rome. Officials there did not return calls for comment.
County Social Services staff is barred by law from asking specific questions about a homeless person’s criminal record because it is not legally relevant to eligibility for county services, including housing. The staff can list the criteria set out by the shelters and ask the individual if they meet them, but the individual may opt not to specify which of the criteria the fail to meet.
- So basically, if you are an ex-felon, they cannot ask about your background, but if you are on the sex offender registry, sorry, we cannot help?
The shelters also ask such questions and might do blood tests to determine if a person is using drugs, she said.
Patricia Witt, executive director of Emmaus House, a shelter for homeless women and children, said her screening process is designed to protect the people her organization serves.
“Our funders and supporters created these shelters for specific purposes,” Witt said, "listing domestic violence, addiction recovery or specific groups such as women.”
Monday, April 22, 2013
ME - Bangor council restricts where sex offenders may live
Original Article04/22/2013
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:
Sunday, April 21, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
ME - City Council Set to Vote on Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
Original Article
04/18/2013
By Terry Stackhouse
Bangor - Sex offender residency restrictions could soon keep criminals away from children in Bangor.
On Wednesday, the Government Operations Committee discussed a proposed ordinance that would limit people convicted of Class A, B, or C sex offenses, against a person younger than 14, from living within 750-feet of public areas where children are the primary users.
In 2010, a similar ordinance was shot down in a lopsided vote, but some councilors are voicing their support.
Bangor is home to 141 convicted sex offenders.
Some locals think that's too many and called on the council to tighten restrictions, but others are saying it's not that simple.
"If sex offenders are actually pushed out and they don't have access to the resources that they need to keep them on an even keel, when all of us are stressed in some way we often drawback to some of those bad habits," said Angel Shaw of Rape Response Services.
Donna Wright of Ohio Street asked, "I think about these children, and these people are predators for the most part, and yes when they are stressed they will revert to bad habits but can't we start putting more limits?"
The issue goes before a full council on Monday and committee members expect a vote to be taken.
If passed, sex offenders already living in restricted areas would not be forced to leave.
04/18/2013
By Terry Stackhouse
Bangor - Sex offender residency restrictions could soon keep criminals away from children in Bangor.
On Wednesday, the Government Operations Committee discussed a proposed ordinance that would limit people convicted of Class A, B, or C sex offenses, against a person younger than 14, from living within 750-feet of public areas where children are the primary users.
In 2010, a similar ordinance was shot down in a lopsided vote, but some councilors are voicing their support.
Bangor is home to 141 convicted sex offenders.
Some locals think that's too many and called on the council to tighten restrictions, but others are saying it's not that simple.
"If sex offenders are actually pushed out and they don't have access to the resources that they need to keep them on an even keel, when all of us are stressed in some way we often drawback to some of those bad habits," said Angel Shaw of Rape Response Services.
Donna Wright of Ohio Street asked, "I think about these children, and these people are predators for the most part, and yes when they are stressed they will revert to bad habits but can't we start putting more limits?"
The issue goes before a full council on Monday and committee members expect a vote to be taken.
If passed, sex offenders already living in restricted areas would not be forced to leave.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
CA - Sexual offenses not a life sentence
Labels: California , Church , GPS , National , Park , Punishment , Residency , School , Treatment , WronglyAccused
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.
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.
NC - Sex offender registry expansion going to McCrory, adds human trafficking
Labels: DayCare , HumanTrafficking , NorthCarolina , Registration , Residency , School
Original Article
04/16/2013
RALEIGH (AP) - The General Assembly has agreed that people convicted in North Carolina of human trafficking should register with local sheriffs as registered sex offenders.
The House unanimously approved legislation (SB-122, HB-221) Tuesday that would add the crime to the list of those requiring the registration if the trafficking involved minors or if it was committed with the intent of sexual servitude. The Senate already approved it last month, so now it heads to Gov. Pat McCrory's desk for his signature.
Such registered offenders must alert sheriffs where they live or if they move. They can't live near schools or day care centers or work in positions where they must interact with minors.
04/16/2013
RALEIGH (AP) - The General Assembly has agreed that people convicted in North Carolina of human trafficking should register with local sheriffs as registered sex offenders.
The House unanimously approved legislation (SB-122, HB-221) Tuesday that would add the crime to the list of those requiring the registration if the trafficking involved minors or if it was committed with the intent of sexual servitude. The Senate already approved it last month, so now it heads to Gov. Pat McCrory's desk for his signature.
Such registered offenders must alert sheriffs where they live or if they move. They can't live near schools or day care centers or work in positions where they must interact with minors.
Monday, April 15, 2013
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:
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:
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)

















