Comments on: “Acceptable” registries and residency restrictions http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:44:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: State-wide struggle over ways to deal with sex offenders | a public defender http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-1932 State-wide struggle over ways to deal with sex offenders | a public defender Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:21:01 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-1932 [...] Here is my post on what acceptable registry and residency restriction laws would look like. Powered by Gregarious (36) [...] [...] Here is my post on what acceptable registry and residency restriction laws would look like. Powered by Gregarious (36) [...]

]]> By: rukidding http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-475 rukidding Mon, 16 Apr 2007 14:57:57 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-475 Too liberal? No. To follow up on great points by ZMan and Ilah, I'd like to add the following: We need to be very careful with risk assessment, although it is definitely necessary. Assessment must include more than actuarial risk tables which focus on static factors. Risk assessment data needs to be tempered by individual factors. You cite job experience as a factor to be considered while other tools include long-term relationships as a factor. My son, an 18 year old, incarcerated sex offender (consensual offense) gets extra risk assessment points because he hasn't had a long-term stable relationship (i.e. been married for at least 2 years) and doesn't have a stable job history. Some instruments also give extra points for living with family members prior to the offense. Most of these tools penalize young offenders for being young! Do NOT assume residency restrictions are here to stay! While some communities and states are jumping on the residency restrictions bandwagon, others are beginning to see the folly of this approach. Virginia recently killed a bill that would have increased residency restrictions. We need to continue to hammer legislators and the media with the facts about residency restrictions. We need to stop wasting our resources on low and moderate level offenders while preventing them from acheiving any semblance of a life. Nice article, Gideon. Too liberal? No. To follow up on great points by ZMan and Ilah, I’d like to add the following:

We need to be very careful with risk assessment, although it is definitely necessary. Assessment must include more than actuarial risk tables which focus on static factors. Risk assessment data needs to be tempered by individual factors. You cite job experience as a factor to be considered while other tools include long-term relationships as a factor. My son, an 18 year old, incarcerated sex offender (consensual offense) gets extra risk assessment points because he hasn’t had a long-term stable relationship (i.e. been married for at least 2 years) and doesn’t have a stable job history. Some instruments also give extra points for living with family members prior to the offense. Most of these tools penalize young offenders for being young!

Do NOT assume residency restrictions are here to stay! While some communities and states are jumping on the residency restrictions bandwagon, others are beginning to see the folly of this approach. Virginia recently killed a bill that would have increased residency restrictions. We need to continue to hammer legislators and the media with the facts about residency restrictions.

We need to stop wasting our resources on low and moderate level offenders while preventing them from acheiving any semblance of a life.

Nice article, Gideon.

]]> By: Studies on efficacy of registries and residency restrictions - a public defender - http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-450 Studies on efficacy of registries and residency restrictions - a public defender - Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:58:18 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-450 [...] reader “Oneandonly” points to two studies that conclude that residency restrictions have no impact on sex offenses. [...] [...] reader “Oneandonly” points to two studies that conclude that residency restrictions have no impact on sex offenses. [...]

]]> By: Oneandonly http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-439 Oneandonly Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:54:07 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-439 Studies have shown for decades that these registries are counter productive. http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uk9da More information that residency laws have no affect. <a href="http://www.dc.state.ks.us/SOHR/Twenty_Findings_on_Restrictions_for_Sex_Offenders.htm">Twenty findings</a> Studies have shown for decades that these registries are counter productive.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2uk9da

More information that residency laws have no affect.

Twenty findings

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-437 Gideon Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:13:16 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-437 Time removed from prior offenses definitely is a factor to consider. I don't want to summarily exclude all offenses committed prior to an arbitrarily chosen date, but something akin to prior misconduct admissibility rules would be appropriate. 10 years or more prior to the date of offense are automatically excluded and then the closer the offense is to that ten year mark (without going over) the less weight it has. Time removed from prior offenses definitely is a factor to consider. I don’t want to summarily exclude all offenses committed prior to an arbitrarily chosen date, but something akin to prior misconduct admissibility rules would be appropriate. 10 years or more prior to the date of offense are automatically excluded and then the closer the offense is to that ten year mark (without going over) the less weight it has.

]]> By: Ilah http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-435 Ilah Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:04:41 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-435 Re #2: I agree with Zman's point, and would add the practical matter of resource allocation. Retroactive, lifetime registration means the same resources are spent tracking those who have lived for decades without being accused, charged, or convicted of a new crime as are spent on those who were just released last month and are deemed "high risk." Many of those decades-post-release folks are finding themselves under restrictions that are in some ways equal to, or greater than, their original probation/parole. That's just plain stupid. Re: #12: What a notion, eh? But since most abuse happens at the hands of someone the child knows--and someone who has no previous record--I'd add education programs that put the responsibility for recognizing signs of grooming and abuse on adults rather than the children themselves. Additionally, I'd add an overview of sex crimes laws to sex education classes, and the college orientation. Parents and young people alike have no idea what can land a person on the registry for life. Re #13: Warnings are posted on most state websites. However, the language is usually "may be a violation of state law" rather than "shall be prosecuted." There's also the matter of whether law enforcement will actually take a report and, if they do, attribute the act to community notification. A few months ago, I contacted two state law enforcement agencies to report specific incidents of harassment, along with general threats and incitement to murder registrants. I was referred to local law enforcement. Local LE told me the county prosecutor had advised them NOT to take such reports at all, but to tell registrants they'd need to retain their own attorney and pursue action in civil court. LE wouldn't do anything, I was told, until someone actually gets hurt. Sure, the state has laws against harassment, stalking, and intimidation. But it's just not the same, I suppose, if you're on the registry. So I don't put much faith in registry warnings of any sort. Registrants are compelled to keep those who threaten to kill them up-to-date as to their location. They are not, by law, permitted to avoid that danger. And they and their families may not, "by custom," depend upon those who keep them in pseudo-custody to show any interest in deterring killers. Re #2: I agree with Zman’s point, and would add the practical matter of resource allocation. Retroactive, lifetime registration means the same resources are spent tracking those who have lived for decades without being accused, charged, or convicted of a new crime as are spent on those who were just released last month and are deemed “high risk.” Many of those decades-post-release folks are finding themselves under restrictions that are in some ways equal to, or greater than, their original probation/parole. That’s just plain stupid.

Re: #12: What a notion, eh? But since most abuse happens at the hands of someone the child knows–and someone who has no previous record–I’d add education programs that put the responsibility for recognizing signs of grooming and abuse on adults rather than the children themselves. Additionally, I’d add an overview of sex crimes laws to sex education classes, and the college orientation. Parents and young people alike have no idea what can land a person on the registry for life.

Re #13: Warnings are posted on most state websites. However, the language is usually “may be a violation of state law” rather than “shall be prosecuted.” There’s also the matter of whether law enforcement will actually take a report and, if they do, attribute the act to community notification.

A few months ago, I contacted two state law enforcement agencies to report specific incidents of harassment, along with general threats and incitement to murder registrants. I was referred to local law enforcement. Local LE told me the county prosecutor had advised them NOT to take such reports at all, but to tell registrants they’d need to retain their own attorney and pursue action in civil court. LE wouldn’t do anything, I was told, until someone actually gets hurt. Sure, the state has laws against harassment, stalking, and intimidation. But it’s just not the same, I suppose, if you’re on the registry.

So I don’t put much faith in registry warnings of any sort. Registrants are compelled to keep those who threaten to kill them up-to-date as to their location. They are not, by law, permitted to avoid that danger. And they and their families may not, “by custom,” depend upon those who keep them in pseudo-custody to show any interest in deterring killers.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-433 Gideon Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:41:16 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-433 Thanks for the comment. Excellent points all. I should have made it clearer that I was proceeding on the assumption that registries and residency restriction would continue to stay in place. I have said previously on the blog that I am against residency restrictions and even registries for the most part. So if it were "really" up to me, they would not exist. Recognizing that they're probably here to stay, these are my recommendations. Again, I should have been clearer as to the existence of the registry. It would not be available via the internet, but only at the courthouse - or maybe town hall as well. I already am an avid reader of your blog :) Thanks for the comment. Excellent points all. I should have made it clearer that I was proceeding on the assumption that registries and residency restriction would continue to stay in place.

I have said previously on the blog that I am against residency restrictions and even registries for the most part. So if it were “really” up to me, they would not exist. Recognizing that they’re probably here to stay, these are my recommendations.

Again, I should have been clearer as to the existence of the registry. It would not be available via the internet, but only at the courthouse - or maybe town hall as well.

I already am an avid reader of your blog :)

]]> By: ZMan http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-431 ZMan Fri, 13 Apr 2007 06:14:56 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-431 Here are my thoughts. First and foremost, I think the registries need to be put back to how they were, where only the police have the info and it's not on the internet. If the public wants to know they can go down to the court house like it was before. With it being on the Internet, it just opens them and their families to harassment and vigilante attacks. Check out my blog. I have links to some eAdvocate blogs and he has extensive research on deaths, murders, etc. Also, more of my thoughts are here: <a href="http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-thoughts-sex-offender-law-issues.html" rel="nofollow">My thoughts</a> 2. You also need to think about when the last time the offender re-offended. Many have not re-offended in many years, so there should be a way to get off all punishment. 5. Low level offenders should not have to register at all, or off the registry as soon as they are off parole/probation. 6 & 7. The buffer zones do not work. They are a "false sense" of security. If a person has these restrictions and wanted to re-offend, how is this buffer zone going to prevent another crime? It's just more punishment which does nothing except punish the offenders and doesn't protect anyone. There should be exclusion zones, meaning you cannot go to schools, day cares, etc. But not within XX feet. That makes it very hard for many of these people to find anywhere to live. 8. Again, buffer zones do not work, and most victims are in the same home as the offender. So this won't work. Some cases, maybe. For those like Couey or others. Stranger Danger is not all it's hyped up to be. It happens very rarely, but it's due to the media exploiting these people which make it look worse than it is. 9. I do not agree with this. The registry is a modern day scarlet letter. If we must have the registries then I think we need a criminal history registry for ALL criminals. Otherwise it's discrimination. 10. Great idea, but how would they provide this? How is a web site going to know if you are not lying or not? 13. I believe this is already in effect, and it should be on ALL registries in BOLD red so people can see it easily. Many registries do not show this warning. Please review the blog item I mentioned above for more of my thoughts. Here are my thoughts. First and foremost, I think the registries need to be put back to how they were, where only the police have the info and it’s not on the internet. If the public wants to know they can go down to the court house like it was before. With it being on the Internet, it just opens them and their families to harassment and vigilante attacks. Check out my blog. I have links to some eAdvocate blogs and he has extensive research on deaths, murders, etc.

Also, more of my thoughts are here:

My thoughts

2. You also need to think about when the last time the offender re-offended. Many have not re-offended in many years, so there should be a way to get off all punishment.

5. Low level offenders should not have to register at all, or off the registry as soon as they are off parole/probation.

6 & 7. The buffer zones do not work. They are a “false sense” of security. If a person has these restrictions and wanted to re-offend, how is this buffer zone going to prevent another crime? It’s just more punishment which does nothing except punish the offenders and doesn’t protect anyone. There should be exclusion zones, meaning you cannot go to schools, day cares, etc. But not within XX feet. That makes it very hard for many of these people to find anywhere to live.

8. Again, buffer zones do not work, and most victims are in the same home as the offender. So this won’t work. Some cases, maybe. For those like Couey or others. Stranger Danger is not all it’s hyped up to be. It happens very rarely, but it’s due to the media exploiting these people which make it look worse than it is.

9. I do not agree with this. The registry is a modern day scarlet letter. If we must have the registries then I think we need a criminal history registry for ALL criminals. Otherwise it’s discrimination.

10. Great idea, but how would they provide this? How is a web site going to know if you are not lying or not?

13. I believe this is already in effect, and it should be on ALL registries in BOLD red so people can see it easily. Many registries do not show this warning.

Please review the blog item I mentioned above for more of my thoughts.

]]> By: Gideon http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-430 Gideon Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:56:51 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-430 Good point as to the length of work restrictions. I'll have to give it more thought, but my initial instinct is that 10 years for mid-level and 20 years for high-level offenders should do the trick. Good point as to the length of work restrictions. I’ll have to give it more thought, but my initial instinct is that 10 years for mid-level and 20 years for high-level offenders should do the trick.

]]> By: wtto http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-429 wtto Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:51:15 +0000 http://apublicdefender.com/2007/04/12/acceptable-registries-and-residency-restrictions/#comment-429 Are you suggesting that the restriction on working with children last only as long as the registration? Also, do you really think mid-level offenders should have their registration be public? I am more comfortable with that because of # 10 but without your #10 I would not think that was a good idea. Also, I think #8 and # 11 are especially important. Are you suggesting that the restriction on working with children last only as long as the registration?

Also, do you really think mid-level offenders should have their registration be public? I am more comfortable with that because of # 10 but without your #10 I would not think that was a good idea.

Also, I think #8 and # 11 are especially important.

]]>