Sex offender homelessness: a growing problem
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
USA Today has two pieces covering the growing problem of sex offender homelessness due to strict residency restrictions and the real dangers posed by it.
Thousands of convicted sex offenders are reporting to police that they are homeless, raising concerns that their lack of a permanent address could make them difficult to track, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
Sex offenders, who are required to register with police and often barred by law from living near places where children gather, list addresses such as a tent, “near a bike path,” “behind a cemetery” or “woods behind Wal-Mart.”
Two-thirds of the states allow convicted sex offenders, including violent predators, to register as homeless or list a shelter or inexact location as long as they stay in touch with police.
At least a dozen states list hundreds of sex offenders without specific addresses. California registered 2,716 as “transient.” Washington state listed 564 as homeless, but the number is probably much higher, says Carolyn Sanchez of the Washington State Patrol.
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maine and other states say the number of homeless sex offenders is rising. Landlords often won’t rent to them, and laws in dozens of states and hundreds of cities bar them from living near areas where kids play.
The primary cause of this homelessness is their inability to secure any sort of housing in cities and towns due to excessively strict residency restrictions. This creates public safety problems on two fronts: It makes it difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them and it increases the sense of isolation, frustration and loneliness felt by the homeless.
Residency restrictions in their current form have no visible impact on the reduction of crime and in fact, may well end up being counterproductive.
Sex Crimes also has this covered.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
I hope the decision of Georgia’s Supreme Court, in finding that 1000-ft. residency restrictions are unconstitutional, will set a precedent, in where the justices found the following:
“sex offenders face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes in order to comply with the restrictions” and the residency restriction:
“is unconstitutional because it permits the regulatory taking of appellant’s property without just and adequate compensation.”
S07A1043 MANN v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT of CORRECTIONS et. al.
“…and in fact, may well end up being counterproductive.”
Any policy that deliberately undermines a factor known to decrease the likelihood of recidivism–in this case, stable residence–is indeed counterproductive.
Residency restrictions are a tacit admission that no-holds-barred community notification is a failed experiment.